Obama Insults PA Voters

[red states rule]

This clown is an idiot. is there anybody in Ameria Barry, his wife, and racist pastor like?


Guns, God and Government
Obama Courts Bitter and Clingy Pennsylvanians
By KAREN TRAVERS, TEDDY DAVIS and TALAL AL-KHATIB
April 11, 2008

Did Barack Obama just hand Hillary Clinton and John McCain a nicely gift-wrapped, up for interpretation, potentially damaging quote?

Mayhill Fowler is reporting on the Huffington Post that at a fundraiser in San Francisco this week, Obama put the blue collar voters of small town Pennsylvania on the analyst's couch:

"You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them," Obama said. "And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

So far, the Obama campaign is not confirming nor refuting the comments, but Clinton has already weighed in on the stump in Philadelphia.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/TheNote/story?id=3105455&page=1

[stephanie]

This is ALL over the net..I hope Obambam and his angry wife continue opening their mouth and sticking both feet in....:coffee:

[red states rule]

This is ALL over the net..I hope Obambam and his angry wife continue opening their mouth and sticking both feet in....:coffee:

This is the most condescending piece of crap aimed at mainstream Americans I have ever heard come out of the mouth of any candidate ever Stephanie.

He is a disgusting, classless_________________ (you fill in the blank)

[TheStripey1]

This clown is an idiot. is there anybody in Ameria Barry, his wife, and racist pastor like?


Guns, God and Government
Obama Courts Bitter and Clingy Pennsylvanians
By KAREN TRAVERS, TEDDY DAVIS and TALAL AL-KHATIB
April 11, 2008

Did Barack Obama just hand Hillary Clinton and John McCain a nicely gift-wrapped, up for interpretation, potentially damaging quote?

Mayhill Fowler is reporting on the Huffington Post that at a fundraiser in San Francisco this week, Obama put the blue collar voters of small town Pennsylvania on the analyst's couch:

"You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them," Obama said. "And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

So far, the Obama campaign is not confirming nor refuting the comments, but Clinton has already weighed in on the stump in Philadelphia.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/TheNote/story?id=3105455&page=1

What exactly is your point? There are plenty of towns all across america that are also stuck in the past waiting for that mill or factory to reopen... they won't of course, but those citizens of all those towns are still there hoping that their good paying jobs will return from overseas.

Do you think John McCain has a plan to revive their economic fortunes? By all means... lay it out... all I've heard from him is __________... nothing but more of the same... tax breaks for the rich is the name of his game... which is good for him because he's rich... but how about the rest of us?

[Yurt]

ok...i'll play....what is so harmful about what he said

[red states rule]

What exactly is your point? There are plenty of towns all across america that are also stuck in the past waiting for that mill or factory to reopen... they won't of course, but those citizens of all those towns are still there hoping that their good paying jobs will return from overseas.

Do you think John McCain has a plan to revive their economic fortunes? By all means... lay it out... all I've heard from him is __________... nothing but more of the same... tax breaks for the rich is the name of his game... which is good for him because he's rich... but how about the rest of us?

so according to Obama when someone shoots somebody up because they don't have a job, rather than get themselves re-educated, we must have empathy for them for their frustrations? He has really really lost it

McCain's wife is the one with the wealth - and she earned it

[TheStripey1]

and obtw.. if John "100 years" McCain is elected, will YOU TWO diehard conservatives be enlisting in the military? Or will you just continue to show your "patriotism" as you are now? Typing.

:lame2:

[red states rule]

and obtw.. if John "100 years" McCain is elected, will YOU TWO diehard conservatives be enlisting in the military? Or will you just continue to show your "patriotism" as you are now? Typing.

:lame2:

McCain did not say we would be fighting in Iraq for a 100 years. It has been more thne 60 years and we stil have troops in Europe and Japan

Please seek help for your hate and anger problem

[stephanie]

and obtw.. if John "100 years" McCain is elected, will YOU TWO diehard conservatives be enlisting in the military? Or will you just continue to show your "patriotism" as you are now? Typing.

:lame2:

Oh good grief..are we back to this shit again..

this thread was about what Obambam said..stick with the program..:slap:

[Dilloduck]

so according to Obama when someone shoots somebody up because they don't have a job, rather than get themselves re-educated, we must have empathy for them for their frustrations? He has really really lost it

McCain's wife is the one with the wealth - and she earned it

It's you hyper-partisanship rearing it's ugly head again. Obama didn't say anything about shooting anybody.

[red states rule]

It's you hyper-partisanship rearing it's ugly head again. Obama didn't say anything about shooting anybody.

He is playing the classic liberal talking points on guns and God

And taking his pot shots at gun owners and Christians. A bad mistake in many areas of PA

[Dilloduck]

He is playing the classic liberal talking points on guns and God

And taking his pot shots at gun owners and Christians. A bad mistake in many areas of PA

Ya but it takes a real partisan hack to try to spin into what you just tried.

[stephanie]

I was just reading about this at the DuUnderground..

Here ya go...:laugh2:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5459045

[red states rule]

Ya but it takes a real partisan hack to try to spin into what you just tried.

I can just imagine how this went over like a lead balloon there LOT. To me this is nothing less than what his dear pastor has been preaching.

[red states rule]

I was just reading about this at the DuUnderground..

Here ya go...:laugh2:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5459045

"You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them...And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not.

And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."



Obama's take on typical white people

[Dilloduck]

I can just imagine how this went over like a lead balloon there LOT. To me this is nothing less than what his dear pastor has been preaching.

That's because you can find dirt everywhere. Even if it was never said.

[red states rule]

That's because you can find dirt everywhere. Even if it was never said.

Barry is covered in dirt. Some people around hear have a real problem of the dirt being exposed to the light of day

Learn to get over it

[Kathianne]

I agree with whomever said it shows Obama with a bias against 'small towns' ie., whites, at least from such. Much like his grandma he seems to go for stereotypes.

What I found more interesting though was how his comment juxtaposes with this story from a couple months ago:

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080228/turkey_Gates_080228/20080229/


Obama campaign mum on NAFTA contact with Canada

Updated Fri. Feb. 29 2008 12:32 PM ET

CTV.ca News Staff

Despite repeated requests, Barack Obama's campaign is still neither verifying nor denying a CTV report that a senior member of the team made contact with the Canadian government -- via the Chicago consulate general -- regarding comments Obama made about NAFTA.

Allegations of double talk on the North American Free Trade Agreement from both the Obama and Clinton campaigns dominated the U.S. political landscape on Thursday.

On Wednesday, CTV reported that a senior member of Obama's campaign called the Canadian government within the last month -- saying that when Senator Obama talks about opting out of the free trade deal, the Canadian government shouldn't worry. The operative said it was just campaign rhetoric not to be taken seriously....

[Dilloduck]

Barry is covered in dirt. Some people around hear have a real problem of the dirt being exposed to the light of day

Learn to get over it

I don't think you need to lie for anyone to see the dirt. You're becoming what you hate.

[red states rule]

I agree with whomever said it shows Obama with a bias against 'small towns' ie., whites, at least from such. Much like his grandma he seems to go for stereotypes.

What I found more interesting though was how his comment juxtaposes with this story from a couple months ago:

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080228/turkey_Gates_080228/20080229/


Most liberals look at rural Amercia with a sneer. The think only hicks and gun nuts live there, and are beyond all hope

[red states rule]

I don't think you need to lie for anyone to see the dirt. You're becoming what you hate.

Where did I lie

Barry need to expalin his insults. Also why he "clings' to his religion and a Pastor who preaches to hate whitey

[Classact]

ok...i'll play....what is so harmful about what he saidThis is too funny, time to end the Democratic primary and choose a loser. Why not just add redneck to the description? He forgot to say Nascar sucks... fishing is yucky.... farms stink... it's fucking boring and scary away from negroes and white people that love them... I wish more of them would volunteer for war so we can start over...

Pick a loser... spinner or liar and send them out against McCain... too funny!

[red states rule]

This is too funny, time to end the Democratic primary and choose a loser. Why not just add redneck to the description? He forgot to say Nascar sucks... fishing is yucky.... farms stink... it's fucking boring and scary away from negroes and white people that love them... I wish more of them would volunteer for war so we can start over...

Pick a loser... spinner or liar and send them out against McCain... too funny!

Barry is becoming frustrated that PA Dems aren't buying his load of crap about change. In addition we weren't at all impressed by his speech explaining why he belongs to a racist organization and why his wife isn't proud to be an American. (until hubby won some elections)

[Dilloduck]

Where did I lie

Barry need to expalin his insults. Also why he "clings' to his religion and a Pastor who preaches to hate whitey


so according to Obama when someone shoots somebody up because they don't have a job, rather than get themselves re-educated, we must have empathy for them for their frustrations?

Obama never said we should have empathy for someone who "shoots somebody up". You used the same logic that the NYT would t ocome to that conclusion.

[red states rule]

Obama never said we should have empathy for someone who "shoots somebody up". You used the same logic that the NYT would t ocome to that conclusion.

What else do you use a gun for - except to shoot something?

You are also getting frustrated people are not buying the crap he is sprewing

[Classact]

Barry is becoming frustrated that PA Dems aren't buying his load of crap about change. In addition we weren't at all impressed by his speech explaining why he belongs to a racist organization and why his wife isn't proud to be an American. (until hubby won some elections)Obama is supposed to give a speech in Indiana this evening and address the ah...ah.. ah situation... anyone want to bet how many "ah's" he uses to get his thoughts together? Well that is if any white folks show up..

[red states rule]

Obama is supposed to give a speech in Indiana this evening and address the ah...ah.. ah situation... anyone want to bet how many "ah's" he uses to get his thoughts together? Well that is if any white folks show up..

Do not forget the other excuses he is famous for

My words were taken out of context

Fox News and the right wing attack machine is to blame

Only a short clip is being shown

Ect, ect, ect

[Dilloduck]

What else do you use a gun for - except to shoot something?

You are also getting frustrated people are not buying the crap he is sprewing

I am frustrated because people are not buying the crap he is spewing ??:laugh2:

Davy Crockett used a gun for a club--didn't you see the movie ? If you run outta ammo you can also throw it like a projectile---I've seen that on TV a lot

[red states rule]

I am frustrated because people are not buying the crap he is spewing ??:laugh2:

Davy Crockett used a gun for a club--didn't you see the movie ? If you run outta ammo you can also throw it like a projectile---I've seen that on TV a lot


Where are my hip boots? Your spin is creating alot of fertilizer tonight:lol:

[BoogyMan]

and obtw.. if John "100 years" McCain is elected, will YOU TWO diehard conservatives be enlisting in the military? Or will you just continue to show your "patriotism" as you are now? Typing.

:lame2:

Gads Stripey, are you and your forum disruption squad still out there posting the "you cannot comment if for some reason you aren't out there on the front lines" hogwash?

[red states rule]

Gads Stripey, are you and your forum disruption squad still out there posting the "you cannot comment if for some reason you aren't out there on the front lines" hogwash?

It is one of the tag lines they find, as they scrape the bottom of the barrel in desperation

[avatar4321]

This clown is an idiot. is there anybody in Ameria Barry, his wife, and racist pastor like?


Guns, God and Government
Obama Courts Bitter and Clingy Pennsylvanians
By KAREN TRAVERS, TEDDY DAVIS and TALAL AL-KHATIB
April 11, 2008

Did Barack Obama just hand Hillary Clinton and John McCain a nicely gift-wrapped, up for interpretation, potentially damaging quote?

Mayhill Fowler is reporting on the Huffington Post that at a fundraiser in San Francisco this week, Obama put the blue collar voters of small town Pennsylvania on the analyst's couch:

"You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them," Obama said. "And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

So far, the Obama campaign is not confirming nor refuting the comments, but Clinton has already weighed in on the stump in Philadelphia.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/TheNote/story?id=3105455&page=1

Just for note - Obama hasnt insulted me. I wouldnt give him that much power over me.

However, back onto the topic. I find his statements rather amusing. You are telling me that people have been living in these small towns with absolutely no work just waiting around for some President to come around and give them a job? I find myself very skeptical.

I dont know about other parts of the state, but I know in this area, we are at full employment. heck we cant find enough people to do the jobs here. Then again, this is a Republican county, so its not really a huge surprise there.

Is he talking about the coal communities in western PA? Shouldnt he be putting the blame where it belongs on then? Environmentalist wackos who prevent honest people from doing their job.

[red states rule]

Just for note - Obama hasnt insulted me. I wouldnt give him that much power over me.

However, back onto the topic. I find his statements rather amusing. You are telling me that people have been living in these small towns with absolutely no work just waiting around for some President to come around and give them a job? I find myself very skeptical.

I dont know about other parts of the state, but I know in this area, we are at full employment. heck we cant find enough people to do the jobs here. Then again, this is a Republican county, so its not really a huge surprise there.

Is he talking about the coal communities in western PA? Shouldnt he be putting the blame where it belongs on then? Environmentalist wackos who prevent honest people from doing their job.

tell me, how does he understand so well? When did he ever suffer without a job?

The state of PA has an unemployment rate of 4.9% BTW

Barry an arrogant condescending liberal who thinks we should be impressed by his nice suits and empty promises.

[Yurt]

Gads Stripey, are you and your forum disruption squad still out there posting the "you cannot comment if for some reason you aren't out there on the front lines" hogwash?

come again

[Pale Rider]

Well this story does have legs... it's all over the news. It appears some people in Pennsylvania DO feel insulted, being called "bitter."

[avatar4321]

Well this story does have legs... it's all over the news. It appears some people in Pennsylvania DO feel insulted, being called "bitter."

well i can understand. people dont usually like being insulted. But if you look at what he is actually saying, he is insulting everyone who owns a gun and believes in God.

BTW i dont own a gun, i prefer to use my fists.

[Pale Rider]

well i can understand. people dont usually like being insulted. But if you look at what he is actually saying, he is insulting everyone who owns a gun and believes in God.

BTW i dont own a gun, i prefer to use my fists.

Well of course it'll be spun every which way possible, and what he said is going to wind up being what each and every person believes he said to them.

Fists won't do you much good in a gun fight pard. Just sayin'... :dunno:

And guns make an excellent equalizer when the odds aren't in your favor.

[red states rule]

Well of course it'll be spun every which way possible, and what he said is going to wind up being what each and every person believes he said to them.

Fists won't do you much good in a gun fight pard. Just sayin'... :dunno:

And guns make an excellent equalizer when the odds aren't in your favor.

It was a typical cheap shot at the working folks libs are famous for. His liberal arrogance is starting to show thru, and the voters are starting to se the real Barry Obama

[theHawk]

This is the most condescending piece of crap aimed at mainstream Americans I have ever heard come out of the mouth of any candidate ever Stephanie.

He is a disgusting, classless_________________ (you fill in the blank)

Allow me:

SHITBAG LIBERAL

[red states rule]

Allow me:

SHITBAG LIBERAL

Good one Hawk

How about Liberal Douchebag ?

I wonder where all the Obamamanics are? They seem to be avoiding this thread

[theHawk]

This is the faux pas that Clinton has been waiting for. I hope she decimates him in the next primary.

[red states rule]

This is the faux pas that Clinton has been waiting for. I hope she decimates him in the next primary.

You are not the only one. I am now a registered Dem, and I will vote for - gasp, gag, choke - Hillary in the primary

[mundame]

McCain's wife is the one with the wealth - and she earned it


No, I read that she inherited it, quite a few million. $26 million, I think. McCain went after the rich blonde heiress as soon as he got back from Vietnam and ditched the wife who had been in an auto accident and didn't have any money, just was waiting for him. He married the floozy within a month after the divorce; I have as low opinion of her as I do of him. I guess she couldn't get a man by herself so she had to take someone else's.

[red states rule]

No, I read that she inherited it, quite a few million. $26 million, I think. McCain went after the rich blonde heiress as soon as he got back from Vietnam and ditched the wife who had been in an auto accident and didn't have any money, just was waiting for him. He married the floozy within a month after the divorce; I have as low opinion of her as I do of him. I guess she couldn't get a man by herself so she had to take someone else's.

and she has built up her beer business since taking over

As fas as the rest of your post, I could not care less. They seem to be very happy with each other

BTW, all the money is in her name - they have a prenup

[mundame]

"You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them...And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not.

And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."



So.........................Obama despises white people and will be president only for blacks. Oh, nice.

I knew this was what was going on when I read all of Michelle's angry anti-white comments in the New Yorker piece on her. If she hates whites that much, despite all whites have given her --- Princeton education, high salary just for showing up for a hospital board of directors --- you know she's taught him to feel the same way.

It's going to be a lively four years........it may well not be an improvement over that walking disaster we've got in the White House now.

I see a LOT of income transfer from whites to blacks in our future.

[mundame]

As fas as the rest of your post, I could not care less. They seem to be very happy with each other

Well, presumably EXCEPT when she adopts a black Bangladeshi baby and loses McCain the presidential election in 2000 because of it, and when she steals drugs from the "charity" she heads to feed her own addiction. NOT a woman of good character, in my opinion. Not because of the baby, which is okay by me, but the drug stealing was over the top. Not a respectable way to behave, on the same level as screwing McCain while he was married to someone else and plotting with him to dump wife No. 1.

No, I'd be ashamed to see this dubious character as a First Lady.



BTW, all the money is in her name - they have a prenup

It had better be, or he'd spend it all running for president. At least her lawyers had some sense, if she doesn't.

[mundame]

The state of PA has an unemployment rate of 4.9% BTW.

5% unemployment means full employment; it always has. There has to be SOME unemployment to account for people changing jobs!

I remember a few years ago when it got down to 3.5% and we couldn't find anyone to work for our company in Maryland who could read.

We live just south of Pennsylvania, travel through it often, and it seems a very rich and prosperous state. I don't know where all this poverty and joblessness he's talking about IS!

I think Obama just likes to make racist slurs to excuse why Dems in PA are going for Hillary.

I think they are going for Hillary because Obopaloobop is a creep!

[red states rule]

5% unemployment means full employment; it always has. There has to be SOME unemployment to account for people changing jobs!

I remember a few years ago when it got down to 3.5% and we couldn't find anyone to work for our company in Maryland who could read.

We live just south of Pennsylvania, travel through it often, and it seems a very rich and prosperous state. I don't know where all this poverty and joblessness he's talking about IS!

I think Obama just likes to make racist slurs to excuse why Dems in PA are going for Hillary.

I think they are going for Hillary because Obopaloobop is a creep!

Well you have your own problems then living in MD. As soon as he was elected, your lib Gov hit the state with a $1.3 billion tax increase

And the SOB wants more. Now an additonal tax on millionaires

I left that screwed uo state many years ago

Dems have not screwed up PA as bad as they have MD - but they are trying like hell

[Pale Rider]

You are not the only one. I am now a registered Dem, and I will vote for - gasp, gag, choke - Hillary in the primary

AaaAAAaaahhh... "operation caos".... :D

[NATO AIR]

Dumb comments but those attacking him miss his larger point that bodes ill for McCain in November. There is a lot of bitterness in America, especially after a decade and a half where incomes stagnated and amid rising inflation for everything from flour to tuition (Ongoing from the Clinton years into the Bush years). Obama knows this and is capitalizing on it. His selection of Jim Webb for the VP role will only help him appeal to these people more than McCain can.

Pair this with the disaster Iraq continues to be (and will be worse by the end of the year b/c we don't have enough troops nor the non-military policies to make it work) and you see two tremendously flawed candidates (Obama & McCain) battling it out with the issues (the economy and Iraq) for once trumping personality and values.

I can barely hold my nose and vote for either of them but I do believe the moderate and cohesive economic team Obama has assembled (with the conservative Univ. of Chicago types like Austin Goldsbee) along with the prospective Jim Webb VP slot and the foreign policy types who would join him (Tony Zinni, Bill Fallon) trump the mishmash mess that is McCain's on those two important issues.

[red states rule]

AaaAAAaaahhh... "operation caos".... :D

Yes, I am doing my part to keep the war within the Dem party going. I will vote for Hillary and do what I can to make Barry's political life miserable

[red states rule]

From the liberal media and their defense of Obama


WaPo: Obama's 'Small Town' Slam Framed as Republican Attack?
By Warner Todd Huston | April 12, 2008 - 13:48 ET

Chris Cillizza of the Washington Post's "The Fix" blog executed an example of political gymnastics so amazing for its twisting of reality that it boggles the mind. He actually turned comments by Barack Obama from a dissing of "small town" America to one highlighting how mean Republicans are. You heard me right. Obama's comments had absolutely nothing to do with the GOP, yet Cillizza was somehow able to take his derogatory comments against the American heartland and turn it all into a discussion on how Republicans will attack the Democrat candidate! Talk about a bending over backwards to use an Obama gaff to attack Republicans, this one takes the cake and shows how in the tank for Obama Chris Cillizza seems to be.

So, as you may be aware by now, at an appearance in San Francisco where Obama was talking to some far left-wing California donors, he basically said that small town Americans are racist, gun-nuts who are religious fanatics and who just don't get it.

"You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

So, small town, Midwest America is filled with hateful religious, anti-immigrant, gun-nuts, eh Barack? How more harsh can a candidate be against people he wants to vote for him? Who can deny that this is a pretty bald and mean-spirited statement from the vaunted candidate of love and peace?

So, how should we discuss this incident? Should we talk about all the Democrats in small town America that Barack offended? Should we talk about how Barack is obviously only aiming his message at extremist liberals that have disdain for most Americans?

Not for Cillizza. No, for him this is not the time to chastise Barack Obama for his elitist hatred of the folks who live in America's heartland. No, for Cillizza it is time to point a finger at the nasty ol' Republicans and screech that Obama's gaffe is a perfect example of how Republicans will be MEAN to him!

Cillizza's headline for his piece was "Republicans Quickly Pounce on Obama Remarks," as if the only thing to Obama's remark was how the nasty Republicans would treat it. His initial post before the update started like this:

If Democrats are wondering what awaits Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) this fall if he becomes the party's presidential nominee, the events of the past few hours should serve as something of a guide.


http://newsbusters.org/blogs/warner-todd-huston/2008/04/12/wapo-obamas-small-town-slam-framed-republican-attack

[actsnoblemartin]

no no

this is it


republicans slam 2nd coming of jesus

attacks on obama are all racist, because blacks are perfect and whites are scum

new york times

written by american hating, white guilt liberal


From the liberal media and their defense of Obama


WaPo: Obama's 'Small Town' Slam Framed as Republican Attack?
By Warner Todd Huston | April 12, 2008 - 13:48 ET

Chris Cillizza of the Washington Post's "The Fix" blog executed an example of political gymnastics so amazing for its twisting of reality that it boggles the mind. He actually turned comments by Barack Obama from a dissing of "small town" America to one highlighting how mean Republicans are. You heard me right. Obama's comments had absolutely nothing to do with the GOP, yet Cillizza was somehow able to take his derogatory comments against the American heartland and turn it all into a discussion on how Republicans will attack the Democrat candidate! Talk about a bending over backwards to use an Obama gaff to attack Republicans, this one takes the cake and shows how in the tank for Obama Chris Cillizza seems to be.

So, as you may be aware by now, at an appearance in San Francisco where Obama was talking to some far left-wing California donors, he basically said that small town Americans are racist, gun-nuts who are religious fanatics and who just don't get it.

"You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

So, small town, Midwest America is filled with hateful religious, anti-immigrant, gun-nuts, eh Barack? How more harsh can a candidate be against people he wants to vote for him? Who can deny that this is a pretty bald and mean-spirited statement from the vaunted candidate of love and peace?

So, how should we discuss this incident? Should we talk about all the Democrats in small town America that Barack offended? Should we talk about how Barack is obviously only aiming his message at extremist liberals that have disdain for most Americans?

Not for Cillizza. No, for him this is not the time to chastise Barack Obama for his elitist hatred of the folks who live in America's heartland. No, for Cillizza it is time to point a finger at the nasty ol' Republicans and screech that Obama's gaffe is a perfect example of how Republicans will be MEAN to him!

Cillizza's headline for his piece was "Republicans Quickly Pounce on Obama Remarks," as if the only thing to Obama's remark was how the nasty Republicans would treat it. His initial post before the update started like this:

If Democrats are wondering what awaits Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) this fall if he becomes the party's presidential nominee, the events of the past few hours should serve as something of a guide.


http://newsbusters.org/blogs/warner-todd-huston/2008/04/12/wapo-obamas-small-town-slam-framed-republican-attack

[red states rule]

Obama's second biggest supporter (MFM is his biggest) is now worried about the PA primary


Chris's 'Concern': Hillary Will Over-Perform in PA
By Mark Finkelstein | April 11, 2008 - 21:01 ET


Not that it comes as a surprise, but should Chris Matthews reveal his pro-Obama rooting interest as blatantly as he did today?

On this evening's Hardball, the man who gets a thrill from Barack expressed "concern" that Hillary might have a stronger-than-expected finish in the Pennsylvania Dem primary. Matthews was reading the tea leaves with two Keystone State pros: Dick Polman of the Philadelphia Inquirer and veteran journalist Larry Kane. After Kane reported that the Obama people are more optimistic than they're letting on, and believe it's going to be a "close finish," Matthews let his Obama slip show in this exchange with Polman.

CHRIS MATTHEWS: Where are you on this? Can you go, Dick, and say it's about eight points [for Hillary] or you can't do that?

DICK POLMAN: Well, I'm thinking, after New Hampshire, who wants to predict anything? [enough already: NH was three months ago!] But I'm still thinking modest single digits. I think the longer, this is a long campaign here, seven or eight weeks, and I think that helps Obama. It helps him to get known here, like Iowa.

That's when Matthews expressed his pro-Obama angst.

MATTHEWS: I think these undecided votes are undecided Hillary votes. That's my concern and my belief. I think that's what's going on. I think it's going to be a wider spread for Hillary. Because I think these undecided people, I'm looking at all the polls and I can't see the numbers get above 41 for Obama. If I were his people I'd be worried, because people aren't willing to commit publicly, even to pollsters. If 41 is as high as he can get with the polling, he's not going to get much higher on election day.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2008/04/11/matthewss-concern-hillary-will-over-perform-pa

[actsnoblemartin]

if obama were hitler, he'd be saying zeif heil. thats how big a hack and a biased dork Mathews is


Obama's second biggest supporter (MFM is his biggest) is now worried about the PA primary


Chris's 'Concern': Hillary Will Over-Perform in PA
By Mark Finkelstein | April 11, 2008 - 21:01 ET


Not that it comes as a surprise, but should Chris Matthews reveal his pro-Obama rooting interest as blatantly as he did today?

On this evening's Hardball, the man who gets a thrill from Barack expressed "concern" that Hillary might have a stronger-than-expected finish in the Pennsylvania Dem primary. Matthews was reading the tea leaves with two Keystone State pros: Dick Polman of the Philadelphia Inquirer and veteran journalist Larry Kane. After Kane reported that the Obama people are more optimistic than they're letting on, and believe it's going to be a "close finish," Matthews let his Obama slip show in this exchange with Polman.

CHRIS MATTHEWS: Where are you on this? Can you go, Dick, and say it's about eight points [for Hillary] or you can't do that?

DICK POLMAN: Well, I'm thinking, after New Hampshire, who wants to predict anything? [enough already: NH was three months ago!] But I'm still thinking modest single digits. I think the longer, this is a long campaign here, seven or eight weeks, and I think that helps Obama. It helps him to get known here, like Iowa.

That's when Matthews expressed his pro-Obama angst.

MATTHEWS: I think these undecided votes are undecided Hillary votes. That's my concern and my belief. I think that's what's going on. I think it's going to be a wider spread for Hillary. Because I think these undecided people, I'm looking at all the polls and I can't see the numbers get above 41 for Obama. If I were his people I'd be worried, because people aren't willing to commit publicly, even to pollsters. If 41 is as high as he can get with the polling, he's not going to get much higher on election day.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2008/04/11/matthewss-concern-hillary-will-over-perform-pa

[red states rule]

More from the liberal media and Chris

Matthews Accuses Clintons of 'Blaming the Ref'
By Justin McCarthy | April 11, 2008 - 14:27 ET

NBC News has grown so pro-Obama that their coverage of the 2008 election has become rabidly anti-Clinton. Matt Lauer began his interview with Chris Matthews by highlighting Bill Clinton’s revival of the Hillary Clinton sniper controversy and the former president’s inaccurate defense of his wife’s inaccurate statement. Matthews even brought up Clinton’s notorious line "it depends on what your definition of ‘is’ is."

Moving on to the Clinton camp’s complaints about media coverage, Matthews drew a sports analogy that "when your losing you blame the ref. When you’re winning you don’t." Matthews, who claimed to have a "thrill running up [his] leg" when he hears Obama speak, is hardly a referee in this game.

At the end, Matthews did offer kind words to John McCain opining he has a good reputation and has "been fighting for this country all these years."

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/justin-mccarthy/2008/04/11/matthews-accuses-clintons-blaming-ref

[actsnoblemartin]

nbc has such a hard on for obama, its about to burst :laugh2:


More from the liberal media and Chris

Matthews Accuses Clintons of 'Blaming the Ref'
By Justin McCarthy | April 11, 2008 - 14:27 ET

NBC News has grown so pro-Obama that their coverage of the 2008 election has become rabidly anti-Clinton. Matt Lauer began his interview with Chris Matthews by highlighting Bill Clinton’s revival of the Hillary Clinton sniper controversy and the former president’s inaccurate defense of his wife’s inaccurate statement. Matthews even brought up Clinton’s notorious line "it depends on what your definition of ‘is’ is."

Moving on to the Clinton camp’s complaints about media coverage, Matthews drew a sports analogy that "when your losing you blame the ref. When you’re winning you don’t." Matthews, who claimed to have a "thrill running up [his] leg" when he hears Obama speak, is hardly a referee in this game.

At the end, Matthews did offer kind words to John McCain opining he has a good reputation and has "been fighting for this country all these years."

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/justin-mccarthy/2008/04/11/matthews-accuses-clintons-blaming-ref

[red states rule]

nbc has such a hard on for obama, its about to burst :laugh2:

Almost as big as MFM's :lol:

[red states rule]

Why do libs have such a low opinion of rural voters? Now another lib comes out and smears rural folks



Alan Colmes Agrees With Obama: Middle America is Full of Xenophobes
By Warner Todd Huston | April 13, 2008 - 00:18 ET

And now to add to the ever-lengthening list of Obamessiah apologists comes TV and Radio talker Alan Colmes to say that Barack Obama is right, Middle America IS filled with racist, overly religious, gun-nuts.

On his LiberalLand blog (the formerly secret blog he was hiding from the greater world), Sean Hannity's co-host said the following:

And just where is he wrong? Pointing out why people may be bitter or frustrated, that there is xenophobia, that people sometimes cling to religion or feel paranoid about the government and embrace guns doesn’t mean you hate or disdain a portion of the population.

First of all people do not "cling" to guns and religion because of what a government does or does not do. It is especially demeaning to people's religious sentiment to say that government is their reason for "clinging" to their religion. And secondly, Obama did not mean to say that people were merely frustrated. He was clearly trying to paint Middle America as racist, gun-nuts that were too stupid to understand what was going on around them.

for the complete article

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/warner-todd-huston/2008/04/13/alan-comes-agrees-obama-middle-america-full-xenophobes

[Abbey Marie]

How sad that Obama sees religion as nothing more than a crutch for those who have nothing. Not an expression of true faith and love for our Creator. Obama's belief that people "cling to religion out of frustration", explains why he would stay at that hate-filled racist church for 20 years. It is now crystal clear that Obama's Christianity is something, shall we say, less than sincere.

If I were to guess, I would say that he went there because it was the local church best suited to give him strong political connections, and because it supported his and his wife's scorn for "white America".

[CockySOB]

How sad that liberals sees religion as nothing more than a crutch for those who have nothing. Not an expression of true faith and love for our Creator. Liberals' belief that people "cling to religion out of frustration", explains why they would stay at that hate-filled racist church for 20 years. It is now crystal clear that Liberals' Christianity is something, shall we say, less than sincere.

If I were to guess, I would say that he went there because it was the local church best suited to give him strong political connections, and because it supported his and his wife's scorn for "white America".

There, fixed it for ya!

[Abbey Marie]

There, fixed it for ya!

True for some, but I wouldn't generalize that much! :laugh2:

[NATO AIR]

How sad that Obama sees religion as nothing more than a crutch for those who have nothing. Not an expression of true faith and love for our Creator. Obama's belief that people "cling to religion out of frustration", explains why he would stay at that hate-filled racist church for 20 years. It is now crystal clear that Obama's Christianity is something, shall we say, less than sincere.

If I were to guess, I would say that he went there because it was the local church best suited to give him strong political connections, and because it supported his and his wife's scorn for "white America".

That is a poor criticism rooted in an ideal world that exists for some but not all. How about Western North Carolina where generations of poor people have made it through life because of religion (faith in a better life after this world). Its tradition.

They're suspicious of outsiders but not hateful, especially when the outsiders (like Mexicans) end up just as bad off as them. They like guns because its an expression of their freedom and self-security. They go to church because faith steels them through life, as well as giving them hope for the next.

They're bitter about the government, about the middle class & the rich, about corporations and business in general, etc. Decades of failed schemes and unfulfilled promises.

The more I think about what Obama said, the more I think it was a dumb to say but true observation that is not nearly as wide-ranging as he thought in his arrogance it was but nevertheless describes a good 10-15% of the population.

We have far too many sacred cows in this country. That we have one candidate who used to enjoy slaying them (McCain) and another who is too personally arrogant to do the same without seeming elitist or ignorant is a real shame.

Again, one of those sacred cows being the liberal PC culture that treats Americans as equals and the conservative one that Americans are the greatest people on Earth. This is entirely not true... we're neither not equal nor the greatest. Just average humans in extraordinary circumstances our ancestors and forefathers left us that we now spoil with deficit spending, foreign misadventures, social engineering schemes and multiculturalism.

[avatar4321]

How sad that Obama sees religion as nothing more than a crutch for those who have nothing. Not an expression of true faith and love for our Creator. Obama's belief that people "cling to religion out of frustration", explains why he would stay at that hate-filled racist church for 20 years. It is now crystal clear that Obama's Christianity is something, shall we say, less than sincere.

If I were to guess, I would say that he went there because it was the local church best suited to give him strong political connections, and because it supported his and his wife's scorn for "white America".

The funny thing about this is i think its raises alot of questions about why he attends his particular faith if he views faith in such a matter, which the quote clearly indicates.

[avatar4321]

That is a poor criticism rooted in an ideal world that exists for some but not all. How about Western North Carolina where generations of poor people have made it through life because of religion (faith in a better life after this world). Its tradition.

They're suspicious of outsiders but not hateful, especially when the outsiders (like Mexicans) end up just as bad off as them. They like guns because its an expression of their freedom and self-security. They go to church because faith steels them through life, as well as giving them hope for the next.

They're bitter about the government, about the middle class & the rich, about corporations and business in general, etc. Decades of failed schemes and unfulfilled promises.

The more I think about what Obama said, the more I think it was a dumb to say but true observation that is not nearly as wide-ranging as he thought in his arrogance it was but nevertheless describes a good 10-15% of the population.

We have far too many sacred cows in this country. That we have one candidate who used to enjoy slaying them (McCain) and another who is too personally arrogant to do the same without seeming elitist or ignorant is a real shame.

Again, one of those sacred cows being the liberal PC culture that treats Americans as equals and the conservative one that Americans are the greatest people on Earth. This is entirely not true... we're neither not equal nor the greatest. Just average humans in extraordinary circumstances our ancestors and forefathers left us that we now spoil with deficit spending, foreign misadventures, social engineering schemes and multiculturalism.

The more I think about what Obama said, having experience with the people in the state, the more I think it was incredibly stupid to say because people arent like that here. And it shows more that he is looking at the world as a liberal than looking at any facts. There are no facts to back any of his statements up.

[Kathianne]

That is a poor criticism rooted in an ideal world that exists for some but not all. How about Western North Carolina where generations of poor people have made it through life because of religion (faith in a better life after this world). Its tradition.

They're suspicious of outsiders but not hateful, especially when the outsiders (like Mexicans) end up just as bad off as them. They like guns because its an expression of their freedom and self-security. They go to church because faith steels them through life, as well as giving them hope for the next.

They're bitter about the government, about the middle class & the rich, about corporations and business in general, etc. Decades of failed schemes and unfulfilled promises.

The more I think about what Obama said, the more I think it was a dumb to say but true observation that is not nearly as wide-ranging as he thought in his arrogance it was but nevertheless describes a good 10-15% of the population.

We have far too many sacred cows in this country. That we have one candidate who used to enjoy slaying them (McCain) and another who is too personally arrogant to do the same without seeming elitist or ignorant is a real shame.

Again, one of those sacred cows being the liberal PC culture that treats Americans as equals and the conservative one that Americans are the greatest people on Earth. This is entirely not true... we're neither not equal nor the greatest. Just average humans in extraordinary circumstances our ancestors and forefathers left us that we now spoil with deficit spending, foreign misadventures, social engineering schemes and multiculturalism.

Almost 25% of the population live in areas described as rural, are you thinking 15-20% of them are not bigots, anti-immigration, and gun packing whackos? Perhaps some of the 'rubes' are living in urban or suburban areas? I think he was wrong and stereotyping based on his own prejudices. That doesn't mean there aren't his idea of 'bitter rubes' out there, but they aren't all in small towns and it's not 'most' of any type of housing pattern.

[NATO AIR]

The more I think about what Obama said, having experience with the people in the state, the more I think it was incredibly stupid to say because people arent like that here. And it shows more that he is looking at the world as a liberal than looking at any facts. There are no facts to back any of his statements up.

Where are the facts to back your assumption?

I will say this about PA. Its a unique state that gets lumped in with Ohio, western NC, WV, etc. as one of the rust belt states.. its not though. Its at the nexus of the high-tech sector, the green sector and a number of innovative textile and industrial firms that have beaten the Chinese onslaught by out-innovating the competition while making a quality product. Some of that was helped by favorable state legislation and open-minded leaders, but most of it was PA citizens on the ground making it happen.

I agree it was incredibly stupid to say, but his underlying observation about religion and guns in small towns is not that off the mark. The key is that its not all of them and its certainly not what they "cling to".

In times of trouble and/or disillusionment, people find power and strength in tradition. Tradition in many small towns is strong faith (especially in a better life after this one as rewarded by faith and good deeds) and personal freedom (protecting gun rights against knee-jerk authoritarians from the city).

As well, tradition in this country is under assault across the board from liberal media, social engineering projects and multiculturalism. That Obama represents this enemy does not make his observation instantly wrong.

[NATO AIR]

Almost 25% of the population live in areas described as rural, are you thinking 15-20% of them are not bigots, anti-immigration, and gun packing whackos? Perhaps some of the 'rubes' are living in urban or suburban areas? I think he was wrong and stereotyping based on his own prejudices. That doesn't mean there aren't his idea of 'bitter rubes' out there, but they aren't all in small towns and it's not 'most' of any type of housing pattern.

Obviously. Though I think he's not stereotyping as much as he is just too broadly painting a picture.

As well, I'm fascinated by how he does this. He regularly insults blacks for being poor parents, terrible eaters and bad citizens. Ditto for liberals who think everything can happen easily (like withdraw from Iraq or climate change). Ditto for senior citizens and baby boomers who expect Social Security to stay the same. Now for small-towns. I think he's just an arrogant know it all asshole.

However, even assholes have a point from time to time and he often catches me as an especially insightful liberal asshole.

Much as McCain is an especially insightful conservative a-hole. Though being the conservative, I suppose I'll vote for him though Bob Barr has his moments.

[Abbey Marie]

Almost 25% of the population live in areas described as rural, are you thinking 15-20% of them are not bigots, anti-immigration, and gun packing whackos? Perhaps some of the 'rubes' are living in urban or suburban areas? I think he was wrong and stereotyping based on his own prejudices. That doesn't mean there aren't his idea of 'bitter rubes' out there, but they aren't all in small towns and it's not 'most' of any type of housing pattern.

It is beyond unseemly for a candidate for President to harbor and express such condescending, insulting and dismissive feelings about so much of the population. He sounds not much different than our old friend Ward Churchill.

I am seriously afraid for this country if this man wins. I will pray, and hope that our checks and balances somehow keep him from doing too much damage vis a vis our enemies, but I think he is already polarizing the races to the point of no return.

[Kathianne]

Where are the facts to back your assumption?

I will say this about PA. Its a unique state that gets lumped in with Ohio, western NC, WV, etc. as one of the rust belt states.. its not though. Its at the nexus of the high-tech sector, the green sector and a number of innovative textile and industrial firms that have beaten the Chinese onslaught by out-innovating the competition while making a quality product. Some of that was helped by favorable state legislation and open-minded leaders, but most of it was PA citizens on the ground making it happen.

I agree it was incredibly stupid to say, but his underlying observation about religion and guns in small towns is not that off the mark. The key is that its not all of them and its certainly not what they "cling to".

In times of trouble and/or disillusionment, people find power and strength in tradition. Tradition in many small towns is strong faith (especially in a better life after this one as rewarded by faith and good deeds) and personal freedom (protecting gun rights against knee-jerk authoritarians from the city).

As well, tradition in this country is under assault across the board from liberal media, social engineering projects and multiculturalism. That Obama represents this enemy does not make his observation instantly wrong.
What's wrong with religion? How many people do you think attended Mass, services today or yesterday? How many pray? Are they just small town? Rural areas tend more towards hunting, is there something wrong with that? What evidence is there that rural peoples are more anti-immigration, NOTE, he did not say 'illegal immigration', than those living in more populated towns? Same with trade agreements, what evidence has he?

Sorry NATO, no matter how one parses this, it's along the same type of prejudice as his 'Granny' that was afraid of the black men she didn't know...'

[NATO AIR]

It is beyond unseemly for a candidate for President to harbor and express such condescending, insulting and dismissive feelings about so much of the population. He sounds not much different than our old friend Ward Churchill.

I am seriously afraid for this country if this man wins. I will pray, and hope that our checks and balances somehow keep him from doing too much damage vis a vis our enemies, but I think he is already polarizing the races to the point of no return.

Checks and balances can only work in a split government. Otherwise you get the kinds of myopic corruption and groupthink typified by the Clinton (92-94) and Bush (2002-2006) moments of single-party rule.

[Abbey Marie]

What's wrong with religion? How many people do you think attended Mass, services today or yesterday? How many pray? Are they just small town? Rural areas tend more towards hunting, is there something wrong with that? What evidence is there that rural peoples are more anti-immigration, NOTE, he did not say 'illegal immigration', than those living in more populated towns? Same with trade agreements, what evidence has he?

Sorry NATO, no matter how one parses this, it's along the same type of prejudice as his 'Granny' that was afraid of the black men she didn't know...'

Excellent catch on the immigration statement, Kath! I didn't even notice that. Rep for you as soon as possible. (Can't get you right now). :clap:

[Abbey Marie]

Checks and balances can only work in a split government. Otherwise you get the kinds of myopic corruption and groupthink typified by the Clinton (92-94) and Bush (2002-2006) moments of single-party rule.

So, you are worried as well?

[NATO AIR]

What's wrong with religion? How many people do you think attended Mass, services today or yesterday? How many pray? Are they just small town? Rural areas tend more towards hunting, is there something wrong with that? What evidence is there that rural peoples are more anti-immigration, NOTE, he did not say 'illegal immigration', than those living in more populated towns? Same with trade agreements, what evidence has he?

Sorry NATO, no matter how one parses this, it's along the same type of prejudice as his 'Granny' that was afraid of the black men she didn't know...'

I didn't see him attacking religion. To say so is just beyond the pale.

He's the most explicitly religious major candidate in 20-30 years.

I didn't see him attacking these people for religion, hunting, guns, etc. He merely tried to share his "understanding" of them with other liberals.

This increasingly is like a manufactured outrage moment. Did he insert his foot in his mouth? Yep. Did he attack Americans in doing so? Nope.

If that's the case, then McCain and others who claim people want to surrender to the terrorists by leaving Iraq after 5 years of failure are just as bad for claiming the majority of the country that opposes their war are traitors committing treason.

[NATO AIR]

So, you are worried as well?

Absolutely! I'm scared of them all. They have authoritarian tendencies. I would say this about McCain... his coalitions for passing different legislation through Congress would be different almost every time, so that would reduce the group-think as well as the party unity. He would use the "people's voice" as a bludgeon to get what he wants. The people are not uniformly Republican or Democrat on the issues.. there are certain things they're sorta liberal on and certain things they're conservative on.

[Kathianne]

I didn't see him attacking religion. To say so is just beyond the pale.

He's the most explicitly religious major candidate in 20-30 years.

I didn't see him attacking these people for religion, hunting, guns, etc. He merely tried to share his "understanding" of them with other liberals.

This increasingly is like a manufactured outrage moment. Did he insert his foot in his mouth? Yep. Did he attack Americans in doing so? Nope.

If that's the case, then McCain and others who claim people want to surrender to the terrorists by leaving Iraq after 5 years of failure are just as bad for claiming the majority of the country that opposes their war are traitors committing treason.Stereotyping a substantial number of voters is not a good idea. His 'rephrasing' still comes to the same point as the original elitist remarks. 'Those without our education and experience are certainly the result of their inability to find jobs in the areas they live, being to unenlightened or bright enough to get the skills or move.' That is what was implied. Coupled with their having opinions and tendencies that normally follow being well educated.

NATO, he has been so duplicitous regarding religion it's hard to believe you wrote that.

[NATO AIR]

A fascinating way to parse that immigration debate about small town hostility would be to check out the FBI database on ethnically related assaults, robberies and the like for the past few years to see if there was a difference in cities and small towns. Not supporting either side here but I think the Southern Poverty Law Center did this but not sure when.

[NATO AIR]

NATO, he has been so duplicitous regarding religion it's hard to believe you wrote that.

The religious candidate are all like that. That's why politics and religion shouldn't mix unless one is using politics to defend freedom of religion or freedom in general (like the Pope in Poland or the Dali Lama in Tibet).

[Kathianne]

The religious candidate are all like that. That's why politics and religion shouldn't mix unless one is using politics to defend freedom of religion or freedom in general (like the Pope in Poland or the Dali Lama in Tibet).

Again we agree, I don't listen to any politician regarding religion. Actually I feel much better with a George Bush I or Bill Clinton that pretty much seemed to pay lip service to the religions they were raised in-what they really believed was anyone's guess.

Obama has played politics with religion since he lost his first election in Chicago.

[NATO AIR]

Again we agree, I don't listen to any politician regarding religion. Actually I feel much better with a George Bush I or Bill Clinton that pretty much seemed to pay lip service to the religions they were raised in-what they really believed was anyone's guess.

Obama has played politics with religion since he lost his first election in Chicago.

Absolutely agree!

Though I have to say, it took balls for Obama to stand before a famous black church at the pulpit and denounce the black community and black preachers in particular for gay-bashing and ignoring gays as members of the community. Remember he did this before he won a single state and before he was the monolithic black candidate. He will retain a shred of respect from me for years for that because he broke wide open a debate long hidden in the black community, especially at church.

He does things like that that really offer no personal benefit to him. Again, much like McCain. Which makes him a fascinating public figure, even though one I'm really not keen on becoming President.

[NATO AIR]

McCain on small towns and immigration earlier:

"It's the influx of illegals into places where they've never seen a Hispanic influence before. You probably see more emotion in Iowa than you do in Arizona on this issue. I was in a town in Iowa, and twenty years ago there were no Hispanics in the town. Then a meatpacking facility was opened up. Now twenty per cent of their population is Hispanic. There were senior citizens there who were—'concerned' is not the word. They see this as an assault on their culture, what they view as an impact on what have been their traditions in Iowa, in the small towns in Iowa. So you get questions like 'Why do I have to punch 1 for English?' 'Why can't they speak English?' It's become larger than just the fact that we need to enforce our borders."

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/12/17/071217fa_fact_lizza

Quite similar to what Obama was trying to get across but arrogantly could not.

[Abbey Marie]

I didn't see him attacking religion. To say so is just beyond the pale.

He's the most explicitly religious major candidate in 20-30 years.
I didn't see him attacking these people for religion, hunting, guns, etc. He merely tried to share his "understanding" of them with other liberals.

This increasingly is like a manufactured outrage moment. Did he insert his foot in his mouth? Yep. Did he attack Americans in doing so? Nope.

If that's the case, then McCain and others who claim people want to surrender to the terrorists by leaving Iraq after 5 years of failure are just as bad for claiming the majority of the country that opposes their war are traitors committing treason.


I have to disagree with you on whether or not he insulted rural folks, gun owners, and believers in general. The most interesting thing about Obama to me is the willingness for so many people to just not see him for what he is, even when his own words indict him. I wil say this for him- I'm sure he did not intend to be so condescending and dismissive. It's just that when you are talking non-stop for so long, the truth eventually comes out. And his truth is unfortunately racially divisive and dismissive.

As for the bolded line, after all the bashing of President Bush for his "bringing religion into the WH", and his openess about his beliefs, I doubt you can give the "religious" crown to anyone but him.

[avatar4321]

I didn't see him attacking religion. To say so is just beyond the pale.

He's the most explicitly religious major candidate in 20-30 years.

I didn't see him attacking these people for religion, hunting, guns, etc. He merely tried to share his "understanding" of them with other liberals.

This increasingly is like a manufactured outrage moment. Did he insert his foot in his mouth? Yep. Did he attack Americans in doing so? Nope.

If that's the case, then McCain and others who claim people want to surrender to the terrorists by leaving Iraq after 5 years of failure are just as bad for claiming the majority of the country that opposes their war are traitors committing treason.

There is nothing manufactured about this. There is nothing explicitly religious about Obama. What about Romney and Huckabee? They were far more religious than Obama apparently is. I mean the man doesnt even know what his own pastor says, what exactly about him is religious other than the fact that he occasionally goes to church?

Actually he did attack Americans, spefically those who care about faith, guns, etc. He insulted them by acting as if they sitting on their ass waiting for Obama coming to the rescue.

[Kathianne]

McCain on small towns and immigration earlier:

"It's the influx of illegals into places where they've never seen a Hispanic influence before. You probably see more emotion in Iowa than you do in Arizona on this issue. I was in a town in Iowa, and twenty years ago there were no Hispanics in the town. Then a meatpacking facility was opened up. Now twenty per cent of their population is Hispanic. There were senior citizens there who were—'concerned' is not the word. They see this as an assault on their culture, what they view as an impact on what have been their traditions in Iowa, in the small towns in Iowa. So you get questions like 'Why do I have to punch 1 for English?' 'Why can't they speak English?' It's become larger than just the fact that we need to enforce our borders."

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/12/17/071217fa_fact_lizza

Quite similar to what Obama was trying to get across but arrogantly could not.

Ah but now you are talking about changing demographics of 'a lower socioeconomic group' replacing another, often causing displacement by those that had been there. There are numerous sociological studies that actually point to this phenomena, which can also be an impetus to prejudice on the part of the displaced.

Parks and Burgess; Coleman

[red states rule]

I do find it a bit funny how liberals have a fit at other people stereotyping, then smile and nod when one of their own do the stereotyping

[CockySOB]

I do find it a bit funny how liberals have a fit at other people stereotyping, then smile and nod when one of their own do the stereotyping

Typical liberals....

[red states rule]

Typical liberals....

It is nice when libs allow their mask to slip off and they reveal their real side

But Barry's supporters will find nothing wrong with his blue nosed arrogance

[Classact]

How sad that Obama sees religion as nothing more than a crutch for those who have nothing. Not an expression of true faith and love for our Creator. Obama's belief that people "cling to religion out of frustration", explains why he would stay at that hate-filled racist church for 20 years. It is now crystal clear that Obama's Christianity is something, shall we say, less than sincere.

If I were to guess, I would say that he went there because it was the local church best suited to give him strong political connections, and because it supported his and his wife's scorn for "white America".I was watching Squawk Box on CNBC this morning and the guy that always has messed up hair says: It's almost funny to watch all the TV news channels and see that only Fox News treats Hillary fairly and don't root for Obama I almost spit my coffee out with the look on the face of the guy he was talking to. It was like that commercial where the guy comes in and is asked, what are you here for and he answers, to fix the mute button.

Yesterday I watched the CNN Compassion Debate on religion and Obama almost got angry, like I got my ticket punched on religion on the South Side, a Al Gore moment like How DARE they! Yesterday, on Fox news Sunday Chris Wallace once again put up his clock with over 700 days since Obama promised to come in and reminded everyone and smirked that I really have more and more questions to ask him now........ The problem with Obama's pastor and his statement in SF is they have no answers. SF can be answered T or F. Why did you stay in a racist church for over 20 years? Well I was getting my religion ticket punched.

[red states rule]

I was watching Squawk Box on CNBC this morning and the guy that always has messed up hair says: It's almost funny to watch all the TV news channels and see that only Fox News treats Hillary fairly and don't root for Obama I almost spit my coffee out with the look on the face of the guy he was talking to. It was like that commercial where the guy comes in and is asked, what are you here for and he answers, to fix the mute button.

Yesterday I watched the CNN Compassion Debate on religion and Obama almost got angry, like I got my ticket punched on religion on the South Side, a Al Gore moment like How DARE they! Yesterday, on Fox news Sunday Chris Wallace once again put up his clock with over 700 days since Obama promised to come in and reminded everyone and smirked that I really have more and more questions to ask him now........ The problem with Obama's pastor and his statement in SF is they have no answers. SF can be answered T or F. Why did you stay in a racist church for over 20 years? Well I was getting my religion ticket punched.

The liberal media ins in the tank for Barry. There bias is open and clear

They are doing all they can to defned his past, and circil the wagons around him over his arrogant statements about rural voters

The only thing missing is moving their broadcast site to the Obama campaign headquarters, and the anchors wearing an "Obama 08" button

[theHawk]

I didn't see him attacking religion. To say so is just beyond the pale.

He's the most explicitly religious major candidate in 20-30 years.

I didn't see him attacking these people for religion, hunting, guns, etc. He merely tried to share his "understanding" of them with other liberals.


Yes, he was attacking religion. He is saying that because of bad economic conditions, as a result of government negligence, people become angry and bitter. And when people become bitter, they turn to religion. He is implying that we should all vote democrat, and to vote for him. He and the government(run by democrats), will turn the economic situtation from bad to good, and as a result people will feel good. And when the people are happy with their situation and the government, they won't need religion. People won't need to turn to religion because big brother government is there to take care of them.

This is the mentality that all socialist liberals have, to supplant religion and God with government. And this is exactly what Obama was implying when he made this statement.

[red states rule]

Yes, he was attacking religion. He is saying that because of bad economic conditions, as a result of government negligence, people become angry and bitter. And when people become bitter, they turn to religion. He is implying that we should all vote democrat, and to vote for him. He and the government(run by democrats), will turn the economic situtation from bad to good, and as a result people will feel good. And when the people are happy with their situation and the government, they won't need religion. People won't need to turn to religion because big brother government is there to take care of them.

This is the mentality that all socialist liberals have, to supplant religion and God with government. And this is exactly what Obama was implying when he made this statement.

The only religion to Obama is the US government

The sacraments they offer is social prgrams

[Classact]

The only religion to Obama is the US government

The sacraments they offer is social prgramsI've been slumming in enemy territory, you would be surprised what you find there... http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/2/11/223840/971

[red states rule]

I've been slumming in enemy territory, you would be surprised what you find there... http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/2/11/223840/971

Here is a quote from Ms Obama. Get ready to give up you piece of the pie classact


The latest example was Mrs. Obama's appearance in Harrisburg, Pa., where she told a group of mothers: "If we don't wake up as a nation with a new kind of leadership, for how we want this country to work, then we won't get universal health care. The truth is, in order to get things like universal health care and a revamped education system, then someone is going to have to give up a piece of their pie so that someone else can have more."


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2001271/posts

[mundame]

"The truth is, in order to get things like universal health care and a revamped education system, then someone is going to have to give up a piece of their pie so that someone else can have more."



Oh, nice. The goal is to make everybody poor, I suppose.

Universal health care? The only people who get that money are the health care workers -- hospitals, docs, big pharma. The PEOPLE don't get any of that money: they just get less and less and slower and slower health care!

And as for a "revamped education system," that won't help blacks any more than all the money we've already thrown at the inner city schools. If people are motivated to help their children learn at their potential, one-room school houses and reading borrowed books by the fireside is enough to produce an Abraham Lincoln.

Without that love of learning, ABILITY to learn, and decent parenting, transferring all the money from white suburban schools to black city schools STILL won't improve the city schools. And the suburbs would quickly form schools in homes and still out perform the inner cities.

It's not the money that learns, it's the kids that learn, if they are able to in the first place and are encouraged by their parents.

[red states rule]

Oh, nice. The goal is to make everybody poor, I suppose.

Universal health care? The only people who get that money are the health care workers -- hospitals, docs, big pharma. The PEOPLE don't get any of that money: they just get less and less and slower and slower health care!

And as for a "revamped education system," that won't help blacks any more than all the money we've already thrown at the inner city schools. If people are motivated to help their children learn at their potential, one-room school houses and reading borrowed books by the fireside is enough to produce an Abraham Lincoln.

Without that love of learning, ABILITY to learn, and decent parenting, transferring all the money from white suburban schools to black city schools STILL won't improve the city schools. And the suburbs would quickly form schools in homes and still out perform the inner cities.

It's not the money that learns, it's the kids that learn, if they are able to in the first place and are encouraged by their parents.

That is what liberalsim is all about. Making sure the misery is spread around equally

[typomaniac]

Everything he said about the rural, working-class, often meth-addled right wing is absolutely true - and is really kind of moot, since these losers are far too brainwashed to vote for him anyway.

The one thing he left out is their constant, harping demonization of "liberals" as the new Jews of the 1930s. The new scapegoats. All their troubles, from their rusty pickup to their hemorrhoids, are the liberals' fault. You see it in the vitriol from RSR, steph, classact, hawk, and avey, and they have no intention of ever taking the needle off that broken record.

They'd have no "talking points" without it. :dunno:

[red states rule]

Everything he said about the rural, working-class, often meth-addled right wing is absolutely true - and is really kind of moot, since these losers are far too brainwashed to vote for him anyway.

The one thing he left out is their constant, harping demonization of "liberals" as the new Jews of the 1930s. The new scapegoats. All their troubles, from their rusty pickup to their hemorrhoids, are the liberals' fault. You see it in the vitriol from RSR, steph, classact, hawk, and avey, and they have no intention of ever taking the needle off that broken record.

They'd have no "talking points" without it. :dunno:

You are right. We will never stop showing the blue nosed liberals for what they are, and how they look down on on the working class that makes America the greatest country on Gods Earth

[retiredman]

You are right. We will never stop showing the blue nosed liberals for what they are, and how they look down on on the working class that makes America the greatest country on Gods Earth

you'd better start showing working class America how you plan on getting us off these rocks you have driven us up onto. All the finger pointing in the world will not make Americans forget what party has been at the helm of the ship of state these past seven years. :laugh2:

[red states rule]

you'd better start showing working class America how you plan on getting us off these rocks you have driven us up onto. All the finger pointing in the world will not make Americans forget what party has been at the helm of the ship of state these past seven years. :laugh2:

What is the Dems plan? To tax the hell out of us, provide us government run health care, more taxes and regulation of companies so there will be fewer jobs, more gun reulation so we will be defenseless against criminals,and higher taxes on oil companies so the price of gas goes higher

We are bitter with to much government, and libs want to make the bitternesss increase by shovng more government on us

[Pale Rider]

you'd better start showing working class America how you plan on getting us off these rocks you have driven us up onto. All the finger pointing in the world will not make Americans forget what party has been at the helm of the ship of state these past seven years.

You mean the democratically controlled house and congress? The same ones with the lowest approval rating of any sitting in Washington, ever? The same party that wants to take more of our money so government can spend more? Tell me oh preacher wanna be, just how in the hell is that going to help?

[red states rule]

You mean the democratically controlled house and congress? The same ones with the lowest approval rating of any sitting in Washington, ever? The same party that wants to take more of our money so government can spend more? Tell me oh preacher wanna be, just how in the hell is that going to help?

MFM beleives the Dems can tax America into prosperty Pale. We are to stupid to undersatnd that basic liberal economic principal

Look at all the other countries in the world that have accomplished just that

Give me time, I will think of one

[retiredman]

You mean the democratically controlled house and congress? The same ones with the lowest approval rating of any sitting in Washington, ever? The same party that wants to take more of our money so government can spend more? Tell me oh preacher wanna be, just how in the hell is that going to help?

no.. the ship of state only has one captain.

[Pale Rider]

no.. the ship of state only has one captain.

Lame.... can't blame the condition of the country solely on Bush. I'm not surprised you try though... you've talked an incredible amount of shit on here in the last three months.

[Gaffer]

no.. the ship of state only has one captain.

And the crew is not obeying his orders. They are running willy nilly around the deck and steering the ship in the wrong direction.

[red states rule]

Lame.... can't blame the condition of the country solely on Bush. I'm not surprised you try though... you've talked an incredible amount of shit on here in the last three months.

Since Dems took over Congress, look at all of their accomlished. They renamed about 20 Post Ofices, they went from a 5 day work weel to a 4 day work week, they put more healthy foods in the Congressioal cafertria, and increased the amount of pork

[retiredman]

Lame.... can't blame the condition of the country solely on Bush. I'm not surprised you try though... you've talked an incredible amount of shit on here in the last three months.


lame? we'll see. :laugh2:

[retiredman]

And the crew is not obeying his orders. They are running willy nilly around the deck and steering the ship in the wrong direction.

he pointed it straight at Iraq and ran it on the rocks....America knows who got us into THAT mess!:lol:

[Kathianne]

Everything he said about the rural, working-class, often meth-addled right wing is absolutely true - and is really kind of moot, since these losers are far too brainwashed to vote for him anyway.

The one thing he left out is their constant, harping demonization of "liberals" as the new Jews of the 1930s. The new scapegoats. All their troubles, from their rusty pickup to their hemorrhoids, are the liberals' fault. You see it in the vitriol from RSR, steph, classact, hawk, and avey, and they have no intention of ever taking the needle off that broken record.

They'd have no "talking points" without it. :dunno:

This is the voice of sanity from the left.

[red states rule]

he pointed it straight at Iraq and ran it on the rocks....America knows who got us into THAT mess!:lol:

and Dems promised they would solve those issues if they won in 06

So far they are only telling us things have gotten worse

[retiredman]

and Dems promised they would solve those issues if they won in 06

So far they are only telling us things have gotten worse

senate filibusters. we'll take care of that in november!

[red states rule]

senate filibusters. we'll take care of that in november!

So voters should reward Dems for accomplishing nothing by voting more Dems into power?

Liberal logic at its "best"

Remind me, what was the Dems solution to lower gas prices, fix SS, end pork, and curb Congressional perks?

[Kathianne]

So voters should reward Dems for accomplishing nothing by voting more Dems into power?

Liberal logic at its "best"

Remind me, what was the Dems solution to lower gas prices, fix SS, end pork, and curb Congressional perks?

I haven't a doubt that Democrats will have veto proof control of Congress come the '08 elections. What is up for grabs, thanks to Obama and Clinton is the White House.

[red states rule]

I haven't a doubt that Democrats will have veto proof control of Congress come the '08 elections. What is up for grabs, thanks to Obama and Clinton is the White House.

Then we will revist the economy of President Peanut, and the terrorists will be throwing a party on Election night

[retiredman]

So voters should reward Dems for accomplishing nothing by voting more Dems into power?

Liberal logic at its "best"

Remind me, what was the Dems solution to lower gas prices, fix SS, end pork, and curb Congressional perks?

it may not seem "logica"l to you, but the majority of Americans understand that the senate republicans and the veto pen stood in the way most of the time. They'll fix that, I am quite confident.

[red states rule]

it may not seem "logica"l to you, but the majority of Americans understand that the senate republicans and the veto pen stood in the way most of the time. They'll fix that, I am quite confident.

Again, what were the Dems solution to lower gas prices, fix SS, end pork, and curb Congressional perks?

Dems did promise they would solve those issues

[retiredman]

I haven't a doubt that Democrats will have veto proof control of Congress come the '08 elections. What is up for grabs, thanks to Obama and Clinton is the White House.

when we get a veto proof congress, it won't matter all that much!

[retiredman]

Again, what were the Dems solution to lower gas prices, fix SS, end pork, and curb Congressional perks?

oh...RSR...just wait and see!:laugh2:

the republicans have done ZIP to fix any of that.

[red states rule]

when we get a veto proof congress, it won't matter all that much!

Dems will not get 2/3 of the House, and the Senate is ify

Given all their accomplishments they should lose seats

[red states rule]

oh...RSR...just wait and see!:laugh2:

When are they going to do it? They have had a year and a half already

[retiredman]

Dems will not get 2/3 of the House, and the Senate is ify

Given all their accomplishments they should lose seats
we'll see.... I would be thnking about how I would spend your money, but then I remembered that you had reneged on our bet!

[retiredman]

When are they going to do it? They have had a year and a half already

like I said.... we get a veto proof congress and we'll go to town! we get the white house and the sky's the limit!!!

[red states rule]

we'll see.... I would be thnking about how I would spend your money, but then I remembered that you had reneged on our bet!

I see you are ducking the question on how Dems offered answers to to lower gas prices, fix SS, end pork, and curb Congressional perks

Oh, they have offered NOTHING to solve those issues

[retiredman]

I see you are ducking the question on how Dems oddered soulutions to to lower gas prices, fix SS, end pork, and curb Congressional perks

Oh, they have offered NOTHING to solve those issues

and the people still prefer them in congressional ballots everywhere! go figure!

what is the republican solution to those problems? what was gas when dubya took over? wheh is he gonna get tough with the oil producers like he promised? his solution to the credit mess is to reward the banks and fuck the homeowners....your ending pork crusade unfortunately crossed over a bridge to nowhere.... and congressional perks are bug dust.... the people are pissed about the economy and about the war and they blame Bush for both. sorry.

[red states rule]

and the people still prefer them in congressional ballots everywhere! go figure!

what is the republican solution to those problems? what was gas when dubya took over? wheh is he gonna get tough with the oil producers like he promised? his solution to the credit mess is to reward the banks and fuck the homeowners....your ending pork crusade unfortunately crossed over a bridge to nowhere.... and congressional perks are bug dust.... the people are pissed about the economy and about the war and they blame Bush for both. sorry.

and the price of gas when Dems took over?

Why should taxpayers have to bail out people who bought a house they can't afford? What is next - a bailout of people who run up their credit card?

Dems want the government to get into the nusiness of flipping houses

Dems have outporked the previous Republican Congress - yet they demand we pay more in taxes

YEs, Dems have a long list of accomplishments - maybe you can list them for us

It will not take long MFM, it is a very short list

[red states rule]

Back to the topic at hand. the Cocaine News Network is spinning for Barry

CNN’s Toobin, Cafferty: Obama’s ‘Bitter’ Comments ‘Factually Accurate’
By Matthew Balan | April 14, 2008 - 17:22 ET

CNN’s senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin, during a discussion on Friday’s "The Situation Room," defended Barack Obama’s comments, that small-town voters are often "bitter" and they "cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them," and blasted Hillary Clinton for her criticism of the comments. "I think that is so ridiculous.... I mean that is not at all what Barack Obama said.... I mean Hillary Clinton is clearly distorting what Obama said. And, by the way, what Obama said is factually accurate." Jack Cafferty, a regular contributor to "The Situation Room," agree with Toobin, and went further. "Look, Jeff's right. They call it the 'Rust Belt' for a reason.... The people are frustrated. The people have no economic opportunity. What happens to folks like that in the Middle East, you ask? Well, take a look. They go to places like al Qaeda training camps. I mean there's nothing new here."

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-balan/2008/04/14/cnn-s-toobin-cafferty-obama-s-bitter-comments-factually-accurate

[retiredman]

and the price of gas when Dems took over?

Why should taxpayers have to bail out people who bought a house they can't afford? What is next - a bailout of people who run up their credit card?

Dems want the government to get into the nusiness of flipping houses

Dems have outporked the previous Republican Congress - yet they demand we pay more in taxes

YEs, Dems have a long list of accomplishments - maybe you can list them for us

It will not take long MFM, it is a very short list

and yet, democrats lead all over the map. Perhaps the rest of the country is not quite on the same page with you, RSR?

[red states rule]

and yet, democrats lead all over the map. Perhaps the rest of the country is not quite on the same page with you, RSR?

Still ducking my points

and the price of gas when Dems took over?

Why should taxpayers have to bail out people who bought a house they can't afford? What is next - a bailout of people who run up their credit card?

Dems want the government to get into the nusiness of flipping houses

Dems have outporked the previous Republican Congress - yet they demand we pay more in taxes

YEs, Dems have a long list of accomplishments - maybe you can list them for us

It will not take long MFM, it is a very short list

[retiredman]

Still ducking my points

and the price of gas when Dems took over?

Why should taxpayers have to bail out people who bought a house they can't afford? What is next - a bailout of people who run up their credit card?

Dems want the government to get into the nusiness of flipping houses

Dems have outporked the previous Republican Congress - yet they demand we pay more in taxes

YEs, Dems have a long list of accomplishments - maybe you can list them for us

It will not take long MFM, it is a very short list

the dems have not taken over yet.

we will....soon.:laugh2:

[red states rule]

the dems have not taken over yet.

we will....soon.:laugh2:

Have not taken over?

Which party runs the Hiouse and Senate?

I will try one more time

and the price of gas when Dems took over?

Why should taxpayers have to bail out people who bought a house they can't afford? What is next - a bailout of people who run up their credit card?

Dems want the government to get into the nusiness of flipping houses

Dems have outporked the previous Republican Congress - yet they demand we pay more in taxes

YEs, Dems have a long list of accomplishments - maybe you can list them for us

It will not take long MFM, it is a very short list

[retiredman]

which party runs the ship of state?
which party controls the flow of legislation out of the senate?
which party wields the veto pen?

america knows the answer to all of those questions.:lol:

[Kathianne]

which party runs the ship of state?
which party controls the flow of legislation out of the senate?
which party wields the veto pen?

america knows the answer to all of those questions.:lol:

Yep, they do get it.

My guess, you will get the veto proof Congress, but not the WH. You should, but unfortunately the party is killing itself before our eyes. McCain should not be our head, but my guess is next year he will be Mr. President.

[red states rule]

which party runs the ship of state?
which party controls the flow of legislation out of the senate?
which party wields the veto pen?

america knows the answer to all of those questions.:lol:

You can't answer my questions because you can't bring yourself to admit the Dems have failed to accomplish anything

It is OK MFM, do your little tapdance,a nd ignore the facts

Best to go with your strengths when losing a debate

[retiredman]

You can't answer my questions because you can't bring yourself to admit the Dems have failed to accomplish anything

It is OK MFM, do your little tapdance,a nd ignore the facts

Best to go with your strengths when losing a debate
the facts are the GOP runs the ship of state and it is on the rocks
the GOP controls the flow of legislation out of the senate and has stopped any democratic initiatives, and Bush still wields the veto pen.

America knows those facts.

sorry.:laugh2:

[red states rule]

the facts are the GOP runs the ship of state and it is on the rocks
the GOP controls the flow of legislation out of the senate and has stopped any democratic initiatives, and Bush still wields the veto pen.

America knows those facts.

sorry.:laugh2:

MFM and his Liberal 2 step dance

Has to duck, dodge, and hide from the facts when they go against him

Which is a usual occurance

[retiredman]

Yep, they do get it.

My guess, you will get the veto proof Congress, but not the WH. You should, but unfortunately the party is killing itself before our eyes. McCain should not be our head, but my guess is next year he will be Mr. President.

I think we have a lot of time head to head to convince America about the WH. But with the exception of the war, I can live with a McCain presidency...he's damned near a democrat anyway...and with a veto proof congress and especially a senate, we'll be able to cram through our domestic agenda without his approval, and we'll be able to stomp on right wing judicial appointments.

[retiredman]

MFM and his Liberal 2 step dance

Has to duck, dodge, and hide from the facts when they go against him

Which is a usual occurance


no facts...just your opinions... and mine differ from yours.

[red states rule]

I think we have a lot of time head to head to convince America about the WH. But with the exception of the war, I can live with a McCain presidency...he's damned near a democrat anyway...and with a veto proof congress and especially a senate, we'll be able to cram through our domestic agenda without his approval, and we'll be able to stomp on right wing judicial appointments.

Since your party has not kept the [promises they made in 06, why would anyone believe you in 08?

So you support Judges who make up law from the bench?

After all, as I asked you many times

and the price of gas when Dems took over?

Why should taxpayers have to bail out people who bought a house they can't afford? What is next - a bailout of people who run up their credit card?

Dems want the government to get into the nusiness of flipping houses

Dems have outporked the previous Republican Congress - yet they demand we pay more in taxes

YEs, Dems have a long list of accomplishments - maybe you can list them for us

It will not take long MFM, it is a very short list

[retiredman]

Since your party has not kept the [promises they made in 06, why would anyone believe you in 08?

So you support Judges who make up law from the bench?

I support judges who adjudicate with wisdom and compassion, not their extremist conservative ideology.

and the price of gas when Dems took over?

again, as I have said many times, the democrats have not taken over yet. your party still controls the flow of legislation out of the senate and still holds the veto pen. When we do take over, that will change.

Why should taxpayers have to bail out people who bought a house they can't afford? What is next - a bailout of people who run up their credit card?

why should taxpayers bail out wall street bankers who made risky loans? I would would never bail people out of credit card debt or even mortgages, but I would put controls on usurious interest rates. bankers getting rich and richer while Americans suffer is immoral

Dems want the government to get into the nusiness of flipping houses

no we don't. not in the least.

Dems have outporked the previous Republican Congress - yet they demand we pay more in taxes
pork and taxes have little real congruence. Pork is merely a hot button issue but not really driving taxes. And when republicans complain about pork, I only need to say three words: bridge to nowhere!
We want to allow the temporary Bush tax cuts to sunset and return to the tax code that was in place during the years of economic prosperity under Clinton.

now see.... I posted my opinions in response to your opinions. I would welcome your being able to do that on threads about Iraq!:lol:

[red states rule]

pork and taxes have little real congruence. Pork is merely a hot button issue but not really driving taxes. And when republicans complain about pork, I only need to say three words: bridge to nowhere!
We want to allow the temporary Bush tax cuts to sunset and return to the tax code that was in place during the years of economic prosperity under Clinton.

now see.... I posted my opinions in response to your opinions. I would welcome your being able to do that on threads about Iraq!:lol:

Tax dollars are used to pay for the pork. Dems have increased the pork while whining how the government needs more of our money. That is a fact

Why should workers fork over more of our hard earned money to pay for wastful government spending?

BTW

and the price of gas when Dems took over?

Why should taxpayers have to bail out people who bought a house they can't afford? What is next - a bailout of people who run up their credit card?

Dems want the government to get into the business of flipping houses

[retiredman]

Tax dollars are used to pay for the pork. Dems have increased the pork while whining how the government needs more of our money. That is a fact

Why should workers fork over more of our hard earned money to pay for wastful government spending?

BTW

and the price of gas when Dems took over?

Why should taxpayers have to bail out people who bought a house they can't afford? What is next - a bailout of people who run up their credit card?

Dems want the government to get into the business of flipping houses

did you read my answer? try again.

[red states rule]

did you read my answer? try again.

Still ducking eh?

[retiredman]

Still ducking eh?


I answered those questions...in bold in #138

don't like the answers? sorry.

[red states rule]

I answered those questions...in bold in #138

don't like the answers? sorry.

No, you ducked the question

As I pointed out

Tax dollars are used to pay for the pork. Dems have increased the pork while whining how the government needs more of our money. That is a fact

Why should workers fork over more of our hard earned money to pay for wastful government spending?

[retiredman]

No, you ducked the question

As I pointed out

Tax dollars are used to pay for the pork. Dems have increased the pork while whining how the government needs more of our money. That is a fact

Why should workers fork over more of our hard earned money to pay for wastful government spending?

actually, there were five questions and I answered them all. Clearly you missed them all. Here: let me get you the other four answers once again because obviously, you are too lame to go back and read them for yourself:

I support judges who adjudicate with wisdom and compassion, not their extremist conservative ideology.

again, as I have said many times, the democrats have not taken over yet. your party still controls the flow of legislation out of the senate and still holds the veto pen. When we do take over, that will change.

why should taxpayers bail out wall street bankers who made risky loans? I would would never bail people out of credit card debt or even mortgages, but I would put controls on usurious interest rates. bankers getting rich and richer while Americans suffer is immoral.

no we don't. not in the least.


and again...when republicans talk about pork, I just say BRIDGE TO NOWHERE.
every congress has pork.... and it all adds up to a marginal inconsequential amount, especially when one compares it to the waste and abuse of funds in support of our war in Iraq. America knows this. Hell, the poor fucking eskimos who didn't get their bridge even know this!:laugh2:

[red states rule]

Once again, back to the topic at hand

SEE BS is defending Barry and attacking Hillary

CBS ‘Early Show’: Hillary ‘Relentless’ on Obama Bitterness Gaffe
By Kyle Drennen | April 14, 2008 - 15:27 ET

On Monday’s CBS "Early Show,"a story on the controversial comments by Barack Obama that people in small Pennsylvania towns are "bitter," was introduced by co-host Julie Chen this way: "The battle among Democrats and Hillary Clinton's relentless attempt to turn Barack Obama's words against him." Rather than focus on what Obama actually thinks about small town voters, correspondent Dean Reynolds followed with a report in which he declared:

"Clinton hammered Obama all weekend over his suggestion that Americans from small economically hard pressed towns turn inward, become bitter, and cling to their guns or their religious faith during tough times, rather than look to Washington for leadership. Clinton, who is trying to hold on to what polls say is a slim lead here in Pennsylvania, said she found the statement demeaning, even snobbish. And she said so just about everywhere she went."

With Obama looking like the victim, Reynolds went on to briefly mention that the Illinois Senator apologized for the comments: "Obama was thrown on the defensive, forced to acknowledge his words were clumsy and later to apologize if he offended anyone." However, Reynolds immediately followed with the Obama campaign’s defense: "But he said his opponent was intentionally twisting his meaning...Obama also said Clinton's attempt to paint him as the sportsman's adversary and herself as their champion was laughable."

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/kyle-drennen/2008/04/14/cbs-early-show-hillary-relentless-obama-bitterness-gaffe

[retiredman]

and who is running from the debate? :lol:

[Kathianne]

pork and taxes have little real congruence. Pork is merely a hot button issue but not really driving taxes. And when republicans complain about pork, I only need to say three words: bridge to nowhere!
We want to allow the temporary Bush tax cuts to sunset and return to the tax code that was in place during the years of economic prosperity under Clinton.

now see.... I posted my opinions in response to your opinions. I would welcome your being able to do that on threads about Iraq!:lol:

Who was it that called attention to said 'Bridge' and Stevens record? Oh yeah, Coburn, who happens to be a Republican. McCain had quite a bit to do with it being denied also. 'Pork' is something that too many of both parties relish in. It's something regular citizens should say 'no' to, not being partisan, just watching their wallets.

[red states rule]

Who was it that called attention to said 'Bridge' and Stevens record? Oh yeah, Coburn, who happens to be a Republican. McCain had quite a bit to do with it being denied also. 'Pork' is something that too many of both parties relish in. It's something regular citizens should say 'no' to, not being partisan, just watching their wallets.

Last year. there were 11,610 projects" worth $17.2 billion.

Such vital government spending like $742,764 to olive fruit fly research

But remember, we have to pay more in taxes for more vital government spending

[red states rule]

actually, there were five questions and I answered them all. Clearly you missed them all. Here: let me get you the other four answers once again because obviously, you are too lame to go back and read them for yourself:

I support judges who adjudicate with wisdom and compassion, not their extremist conservative ideology.

again, as I have said many times, the democrats have not taken over yet. your party still controls the flow of legislation out of the senate and still holds the veto pen. When we do take over, that will change.

why should taxpayers bail out wall street bankers who made risky loans? I would would never bail people out of credit card debt or even mortgages, but I would put controls on usurious interest rates. bankers getting rich and richer while Americans suffer is immoral.

no we don't. not in the least.


and again...when republicans talk about pork, I just say BRIDGE TO NOWHERE.
every congress has pork.... and it all adds up to a marginal inconsequential amount, especially when one compares it to the waste and abuse of funds in support of our war in Iraq. America knows this. Hell, the poor fucking eskimos who didn't get their bridge even know this!:laugh2:

OK, you do support Judges who make law from the bench. I thougth you were for the US Constitution where it sates laws come from the legislature and not from the Judical branch

So even thiugh your party rules the House and Senate they "still have not taken over yet" is a rich dodge. They have accomplished nothing, but it is not their fault

I hardly consider paying $20 for a $120 stock a bail out.

Your buddy John Murtha is the King of pork - and the Dems promied they would reduce waste oand pork

[retiredman]

OK, you do support Judges who make law from the bench. I thougth you were for the US Constitution where it sates laws come from the legislature and not from the Judical branch

So even thiugh your party rules the House and Senate they "still have not taken over yet" is a rich dodge. They have accomplished nothing, but it is not their fault

I hardly consider paying $20 for a $120 stock a bail out.

Your buddy John Murtha is the King of pork - and the Dems promied they would reduce waste oand pork

I support judges who wisely adjudicate. period.
and again...have 49 seats in the senate may allow Reid to name committee chairs, but it falls way short of the number of seats necessary to "rule". Your party in the senate and their filibuster power, and your president with his veto pen can and have stopped the democrats from ruling anything with 49 seats. that will change in november, thankfully.

I understand that you do not consider the feds actions as a wall street bail out, but many do not share that opinion..


again... as republicans talk about democratic pork, I only need say: BRIDGE TO NOWHERE. I rest my case.

[red states rule]

I support judges who wisely adjudicate. period.
and again...have 49 seats in the senate may allow Reid to name committee chairs, but it falls way short of the number of seats necessary to "rule". Your party in the senate and their filibuster power, and your president with his veto pen can and have stopped the democrats from ruling anything with 49 seats. that will change in november, thankfully.

I understand that you do not consider the feds actions as a wall street bail out, but many do not share that opinion..


again... as republicans talk about democratic pork, I only need say: BRIDGE TO NOWHERE. I rest my case.

Why not support Judges who base their decision on the US Constitution, and not their liberal POV?

Again, MFM you are missing my main point. What have Dems proposed that would solve the SS issue, lower gas prices, and reduce pork. Dems said they would do just that, so what bills did they bring to the floor that Republicans shot down?

Of cousre you do not want to talk about Dem pork - it shows they lied to the voters, and it gives you another excuse to raise our taxes

[retiredman]

Why not support Judges who base their decision on the US Constitution, and not their liberal POV?

Again, MFM you are missing my main point. What have Dems proposed that would solve the SS issue, lower gas prices, and reduce pork. Dems said they would do just that, so what bills did they bring to the floor that Republicans shot down?

Of cousre you do not want to talk about Dem pork - it shows they lied to the voters, and it gives you another excuse to raise our taxes

Why don't YOU support judges who adjudicte with wisdom and compassion?

if you want to understand democrat's proposals for the significant issues that confront America, you can learn a great deal by visiting Hillary and Obama's campaign websites. All of those issues are discussed in great detail. You would find it fascinating, I'm sure.

And of course you want to NOT talk about the BRIDGE TO NOWHERE. It makes the entire "pork" argument one that is similar to the story of Jesus witnessing the stoning of the prostitute. "Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone":laugh2:

[red states rule]

Why don't YOU support judges who adjudicte with wisdom and compassion?

if you want to understand democrat's proposals for the significant issues that confront America, you can learn a great deal by visiting Hillary and Obama's campaign websites. All of those issues are discussed in great detail. You would find it fascinating, I'm sure.

And of course you want to NOT talk about the BRIDGE TO NOWHERE. It makes the entire "pork" argument one that is similar to the story of Jesus witnessing the stoning of the prostitute. "Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone":laugh2:

I want Judges enforing currents laws, not creating new ones as you want. Jusges do not make law MFM. For a guy who claims to support the US Cinstitution you sure ignore it when it fits your politcal views

I am not asking what Dems are promising now, I am asking what they did to honor past promises. What bills did the Dems bring to the floor of the HOuse and Senate that would solve the SS issue, and lower gas prices?

So Dem pork to you is fine. It is fine to raise our taxes to pay for it, as long as it goes for more Dem pork. Once again, another broken promise from the Dems

[glockmail]

Why don't YOU support judges who adjudicte with wisdom and compassion?

That is such Liberal BULLSHIT. Conservative judges don't have "wisdom"? What we need is judges who decide cases without compassion, and based on the frigging law.

[red states rule]

That is such Liberal BULLSHIT. Conservative judges don't have "wisdom"? What we need is judges who decide cases without compassion, and based on the frigging law.

Libs like MFM will twist the US Constitution into more positions then a Bill Clinton intern

[retiredman]

That is such Liberal BULLSHIT. Conservative judges don't have "wisdom"? What we need is judges who decide cases without compassion, and based on the frigging law.

I never said that conservative judges did not have wisdom. And your opinions as to the qualities you'd like in judges are certainly valid. I happen to have a different opinion.

[theHawk]

Why don't YOU support judges who adjudicte with wisdom and compassion?


And I suppose your definition of compassion is a judge who will maintain the status quo of abortion on demand. And your idea of wisdom is a judge who legislates from the bench, as opposed to allowing the citizens to determine their own laws.

[red states rule]

I never said that conservative judges did not have wisdom. And your opinions as to the qualities you'd like in judges are certainly valid. I happen to have a different opinion.

You want liberal Judges making law from the bench and avoid going thru the legislature

It is easier to get your looney liberal polcies put into law using the Judical branch then getting a consensus of lawmakers

[retiredman]

You want liberal Judges making law from the bench and avoid going thru the legislature

It is easier to get your looney liberal polcies put into law using the Judical branch then getting a consensus of lawmakers

I think that the bench can certainly protect minority rights from the tyranny of the majority which is sometimes expressed in legislation. that is the way our founding fathers planned it.

[red states rule]

I think that the bench can certainly protect minority rights from the tyranny of the majority which is sometimes expressed in legislation. that is the way our founding fathers planned it.

Those protections should come from the legislature, not the judical branch

I see what kind of Judges you want. Touchy feel good liberals who make up law as they go along to fit the current polls and focus groups

[retiredman]

Those protections should come from the legislature, not the judical branch



the legislature represents the majority. the judicial system prevents the tyranny of the majority by insuring the rights of the minority. that is an example of checks and balances working as designed. At the state level, Massachusetts courts ruling to allow gay marriage is just such a ruling. The majority of the people may not have wanted gays to be able to marry, but the courts decided that marriage was a right that they ought not be denied simply by the tyranny of the majority. If a majority of citizens decided that they wanted to go back to segregated schools, and their legislature passed it and governor signed it into law, the courts would be there to overturn that law in their role as protector of minority rights.

[red states rule]

the legislature represents the majority. the judicial system prevents the tyranny of the majority by insuring the rights of the minority. that is an example of checks and balances working as designed. At the state level, Massachusetts courts ruling to allow gay marriage is just such a ruling. The majority of the people may not have wanted gays to be able to marry, but the courts decided that marriage was a right that they ought not be denied simply by the tyranny of the majority. If a majority of citizens decided that they wanted to go back to segregated schools, and their legislature passed it and governor signed it into law, the courts would be there to overturn that law in their role as protector of minority rights.

Translation - I want liberals making up the law as they go along. If the Democrat party can't win at the ballot box and in the legislature, screw em. A Judge will do all the work for us

[retiredman]

Translation - I want liberals making up the law as they go along. If the Democrat party can't win at the ballot box and in the legislature, screw em. A Judge will do all the work for us

translation: the legislature advocates for the majority. the judiciary is the advocate for the minority to protect against the tyranny of the majority, or do you spit on the founding fathers as well?

and really, RSR...can't you EVER debate an issue without stupid little "translation" bits? Can't you explain to me why you think the founding fathers didn't really mean to protect the rights of the minority?

[red states rule]

translation: the legislature advocates for the majority. the judiciary is the advocate for the minority to protect against the tyranny of the majority, or do you spit on the founding fathers as well?

and really, RSR...can't you EVER debate an issue without stupid little "translation" bits? Can't you explain to me why you think the founding fathers didn't really mean to protect the rights of the minority?

The translation fits

If Dems can't get their liberalism passd into law, they run to a liberal Judge to do it for them

That is why you want liberal judges on the bench.

[retiredman]

The translation fits

If Dems can't get their liberalism passd into law, they run to a liberal Judge to do it for them

That is why you want liberal judges on the bench.

are you incapable of discussing the concept of the tyranny of the majority and the deliberately planned role of the judiciary in protecting against it?

[glockmail]

I never said that conservative judges did not have wisdom. And your opinions as to the qualities you'd like in judges are certainly valid. I happen to have a different opinion. You certaintly inferred same. No surprise that you won't admit that.

So you opinion is that judges should not make decisions soley on the law?

[red states rule]

are you incapable of discussing the concept of the tyranny of the majority and the deliberately planned role of the judiciary in protecting against it?

Why are you so shy to admit you want liberal Judges to impose your liberalism on the masses?

[Abbey Marie]

Wisdom, and especially compassion, are highly subjective terms. I surely do not want our judges substituting their own subjective view of the world for the law or the Constitution.

If you watch hearings for Supreme Court nominees, everyone is at least on the surface trying to be sure the future justice will not do that very thing. It's the highly partisan folks who hope they will find a candidate who will ignore the law and insert partisan policy (read: wisdom and compassion) into his or her decisions.

Like Roe v. Wade.

[retiredman]

You certaintly inferred same. No surprise that you won't admit that.

So you opinion is that judges should not make decisions soley on the law?

I have "inferred" nothing of the sort. You may have incorrectly "inferred" that from my statement but I did NOT "imply" any such thing. Your inferences are your problem, not mine.

my opinion is that judges should adjudicate and protect the rights of the minority and attempt to interpret the intentions of the founding fathers using the constitution as their guide.

[glockmail]

I have "inferred" nothing of the sort. You may have incorrectly "inferred" that from my statement but I did NOT "imply" any such thing. Your inferences are your problem, not mine.

my opinion is that judges should adjudicate and protect the rights of the minority and attempt to interpret the intentions of the founding fathers using the constitution as their guide.
So the rights of the majority be damned.

[red states rule]

So the rights of the majority be damned.

That is one of the foundations of liberalism. Impose the rights of the minority on the majority

[retiredman]

So the rights of the majority be damned.

no. merely balanced against the rights of the minority...just like the Federalist papers indicate was intended.

[red states rule]

no. merely balanced against the rights of the minority...just like the Federalist papers indicate was intended.

Bullshit

Libs want to do a run around of the legislature

[retiredman]

Bullshit

Libs want to do a run around of the legislature

read federalist 10. read what Madison has to say about the violence of majority faction.

[red states rule]

read federalist 10. read what Madison has to say about the violence of majority faction.

Libs want liberal Judges to create laws so they do not have to debate the issues, or give the people a say on the issue

[Hobbit]

read federalist 10. read what Madison has to say about the violence of majority faction.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that many Democrats and liberals cheer when judges make rulings that are not based on, or are sometimes directly against, the law, which is outside of their jurisdiction. It is the job of the legislature, not the judiciary, to make new law.

[retiredman]

Which has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that many Democrats and liberals cheer when judges make rulings that are not based on, or are sometimes directly against, the law, which is outside of their jurisdiction. It is the job of the legislature, not the judiciary, to make new law.

what you claim as "outside their jurisdiction" is really a matter for the courts to decide! sorry.

[Hobbit]

what you claim as "outside their jurisdiction" is really a matter for the courts to decide! sorry.

So the courts get to decide what their own jurisdiction is? Isn't that directly against both the Constitution and the principle of checks and balances?

[retiredman]

So the courts get to decide what their own jurisdiction is? Isn't that directly against both the Constitution and the principle of checks and balances?

no, it is not.

[red states rule]

So the courts get to decide what their own jurisdiction is? Isn't that directly against both the Constitution and the principle of checks and balances?

Everytime libs lose a gay marriage vote, they run to a liberal Judge to toss out the votes

The libs on the USSC ignored the US Constitution and ruled local government can take your home for PRIVATE delvelopment so property tax revenue can increase

Just a couple examples of why liberals want more liberal Judges on the Courts

[mundame]

That is one of the foundations of liberalism. Impose the rights of the minority on the majority


No one is imposing abortion on you.

They are protecting the right to choose abortion if someone wants to. If the majority doesn't want to, hey, carry on at will.

I think some people mistake wanting complete control and not getting it for "imposing the rights of the minority on the majority." If they don't get to control other people to force them to do what they want, especially controlling women, then they just aren't having fun and feel all indignant.

I'd say if you don't want an abortion, don't have one. But leave other people alone about the issue.

[actsnoblemartin]

I was hoping someone would pick up the lying, empy suit, no cattle piece of trash, racist black man's self identity crises, blaming others, fool

he speaks, foot inserted.

kinda like bill and hillaries sex life.

jackass opens mouth hillary inserts foot :laugh2:


This is the most condescending piece of crap aimed at mainstream Americans I have ever heard come out of the mouth of any candidate ever Stephanie.

He is a disgusting, classless_________________ (you fill in the blank)

[retiredman]

Everytime libs lose a gay marriage vote, they run to a liberal Judge to toss out the votes

The libs on the USSC ignored the US Constitution and ruled local government can take your home for PRIVATE delvelopment so property tax revenue can increase

Just a couple examples of why liberals want more liberal Judges on the Courts


what if a state legislature voted to segregate schools? Do you think that the citizens should have redress through the court system to stop that? yes or no?

[red states rule]

No one is imposing abortion on you.

They are protecting the right to choose abortion if someone wants to. If the majority doesn't want to, hey, carry on at will.

I think some people mistake wanting complete control and not getting it for "imposing the rights of the minority on the majority." If they don't get to control other people to force them to do what they want, especially controlling women, then they just aren't having fun and feel all indignant.

I'd say if you don't want an abortion, don't have one. But leave other people alone about the issue.

Where in the US Constitution does it state a women has the right to murder her unborn child?

Liberals always thump their chest how they care about the rights of people, yet they do not give a damn how many unborn children are deprived of their right to live

[actsnoblemartin]

With all due respect, un-accoutable judges in 1973 said to all 50 states and its people, we dont care what you think or feel about abortion.

Each state, and its people need to make that decision for themselves, without judges.

if a state legistaler says abortion yay, then the people should have a right to overrule them, by signatures, and same vice versa.

let the people decide


No one is imposing abortion on you.

They are protecting the right to choose abortion if someone wants to. If the majority doesn't want to, hey, carry on at will.

I think some people mistake wanting complete control and not getting it for "imposing the rights of the minority on the majority." If they don't get to control other people to force them to do what they want, especially controlling women, then they just aren't having fun and feel all indignant.

I'd say if you don't want an abortion, don't have one. But leave other people alone about the issue.

[actsnoblemartin]

What i dont understand is how their is no accountability demanded from liberalism, be irresponsible, just kill it.

Women & MEN, need to take responsibility for their actions, and if their irresponsibility leads to a life, and they dont want it, its called ADOPTION


Where in the US Constitution does it state a women has the right to murder her unborn child?

Liberals always thump their chest how they care about the rights of people, yet they do not give a damn how many unborn children are deprived of their right to live

[retiredman]

Where in the US Constitution does it state a women has the right to murder her unborn child?

Liberals always thump their chest how they care about the rights of people, yet they do not give a damn how many unborn children are deprived of their right to live


I think both Hillary and Obama gave good answers to that issue at the compassion forum. Too bad McCain let democrats have the stage uncontested to talk to people of faith. There were a lot of religious conservatives at that forum that came away impressed.

When does life begin? at the separation of a cell or at the stirring of the soul? You have your opinion, others think differently.

[red states rule]

I think both Hillary and Obama gave good answers to that issue at the compassion forum. Too bad McCain let democrats have the stage uncontested to talk to people of faith. There were a lot of religious conservatives at that forum that came away impressed.

When does life begin? at the separation of a cell or at the stirring of the soul? You have your opinion, others think differently.

The more people they get on federal handouts the better. It makes libs feel so good about themselves. They are so generous with other peoples money

[mundame]

Where in the US Constitution does it state a women has the right to murder her unborn child?

Where does it say she doesn't?

Nowhere, of course.



Liberals always thump their chest how they care about the rights of people, yet they do not give a damn how many unborn children are deprived of their right to live

That's simple to explain: it's because fetuses aren't people yet.

Settles that problem!

[red states rule]

Where does it say she doesn't?

Nowhere, of course.




That's simple to explain: it's because fetuses aren't people yet.

Settles that problem!

They are people. Look at a 3D Ultrasound Pictures and try to tell me with a striaght face they are not people

The body of the baby at 11 weeks
http://pregnancy.about.com/library/ultrasounds/blus3d0511a.htm

[retiredman]

The more people they get on federal handouts the better. It makes libs feel so good about themselves. They are so generous with other peoples money


sometimes I think you generate your replies from some rush limbaugh inspired "Magic Eight Ball". You shake it and then wait until an answer floats up to the window and you type it.

what does what you said in this post have to do with what I typed about the candidate's answers to the question about when life begins? :laugh2:

[red states rule]

sometimes I think you generate your replies from some rush limbaugh inspired "Magic Eight Ball". You shake it and then wait until an answer floats up to the window and you type it.

what does what you said in this post have to do with what I typed about the candidate's answers to the question about when life begins? :laugh2:

That "Compassion forum" was a joke. All it was was a laundry list of what Dems will give away to masses

It was like the over the hill hippie in 1992 who asked the candidates what they were going to do for him

[actsnoblemartin]

actually, god said life begins at conceptions, and how can you say that un-born child has no soul?

you think the almighty g_d, or in my case hashem places no value on that unborn child

funny how you have to degrade and denigrate it down to a fetus so you can kill it, kind of like how the nazi's had to degrade and denigrate jews to kikes and rats.

and for the record im a jew, and i do believe killing un-born children is murder and comparable to the holocaust.



Where does it say she doesn't?

Nowhere, of course.




That's simple to explain: it's because fetuses aren't people yet.

Settles that problem!

[retiredman]

actually, god said life begins at conceptions, and how can you say that un-born child has no soul?

you think the almighty g_d, or in my case hashem places no value on that unborn child

funny how you have to degrade and denigrate it down to a fetus so you can kill it, kind of like how the nazi's had to degrade and denigrate jews to kikes and rats.

and for the record im a jew, and i do believe killing un-born children is murder and comparable to the holocaust.

please show me the passage from the bible where God says that life begins at conception.

[typomaniac]

Translation - I want liberals making up the law as they go along. If the Democrat party can't win at the ballot box and in the legislature, screw em. A Judge will do all the work for us

Just like they did for the pubbies in Bush v. Gore, 2000! :lame2:

[mundame]

They are people. Look at a 3D Ultrasound Pictures and try to tell me with a striaght face they are not people

The body of the baby at 11 weeks
http://pregnancy.about.com/library/ultrasounds/blus3d0511a.htm



They are people if we want the baby, RSR, true.

However, if we don't, this is the only time, before they actually have a life, that we can deal with the issue.

About your sonogram: you know what they are for, don't you?

They are for making sure there are not severe birth defects or other major problems that make an abortion necessary. That's what the sonograms are FOR. Most abortions now are about birth defects and handicapping conditions, genetic errors. Do you notice we hardly see any more Down's Syndrome children? You used to see them all the time, and other very grave impairments --- I saw a microcephalic boy, long ago; that was a horrorshow.

And have you ever, ever seen a woman WITH a husband as well as a retarded or birth-defect child? The man always bails out and leaves: he didn't sign up for that and he doesn't hang around. So it's all on her, the rest of her life sacrificed to raise and care for a retarded or handicapped person forever.

All the abortions I've heard of were about the actuality or danger of severe birth defects and impairments. (Women talk to each other about these sad events, but not to men, ever. This sort of thing is why.)

[red states rule]

They are people if we want the baby, RSR, true.

However, if we don't, this is the only time, before they actually have a life, that we can deal with the issue.

About your sonogram: you know what they are for, don't you?

They are for making sure there are not severe birth defects or other major problems that make an abortion necessary. That's what the sonograms are FOR. Most abortions now are about birth defects and handicapping conditions, genetic errors. Do you notice we hardly see any more Down's Syndrome children? You used to see them all the time, and other very grave impairments --- I saw a microcephalic boy, long ago; that was a horrorshow.

And have you ever, ever seen a woman WITH a husband as well as a retarded or birth-defect child? The man always bails out and leaves: he didn't sign up for that and he doesn't hang around. So it's all on her, the rest of her life sacrificed to raise and care for a retarded or handicapped person forever.

All the abortions I've heard of were about the actuality or danger of severe birth defects and impairments. (Women talk to each other about these sad events, but not to men, ever. This sort of thing is why.)

They are people period

So if the child has health issues - kill the child - is that wahat you are saying?

Make life easier for the parents so they will not be bothered?

[mundame]

They are people period

So if the child has health issues - kill the child - is that wahat you are saying?

Make life easier for the parents so they will not be bothered?


People do make that choice, yes, indeed. And the whole entire medical industry is set up to support them.

So we are going to keep abortion legal. Sorry, but that train has left the station.

[Hobbit]

Where does it say she doesn't?

Nowhere, of course.

That is actually a valid argument. The purpose of the Constitution is not to grant people rights but to limit the rights of the federal government. My counter argument, however, is asking where in the Constitution the federal government is given permission to override state law that doesn't violate the Constitution.


That's simple to explain: it's because fetuses aren't people yet.

Settles that problem!

That is a statement of opinion. That they are human beings is verifiable fact, as their existence makes them beings and the presence of distinct, human DNA makes them human. The idea of a person, however, has more to do with the concept of a soul, which cannot be quantified, and is, thus, unproven. The more correct statement is that Democrats don't care about the unborn because they do not believe them to be people.

However, I ask this. If it was discovered with absolute certainty that an unborn child was, in fact, a person, would you still support abortion on demand? If so, then how do you justify placing the rights of one person's convenience above another person's right to live? If it is because the child is totally dependent on the mother for life, and thus that right is less important, then are you also in favor of killing a child after birth, as they are still completely dependent upon others for survival? Where is the line?

I also ask you to consider the worst case scenario. If I am wrong and the policies I favor are enforced, then the worst I have done is make the ordeal of unwanted pregnancy (an easily avoided ordeal) a few months longer for many people, while at the same time shortening adoption waiting lists and saving women from the documented emotional trauma and guilt that often follows an abortion. If you are wrong and the policies you favor are enforced, then you have perpetuated a waste of human life more massive than the Holocaust. In the case of an unknown, isn't it better to err on the side of caution?

[typomaniac]

And have you ever, ever seen a woman WITH a husband as well as a retarded or birth-defect child? The man always bails out and leaves: he didn't sign up for that and he doesn't hang around. So it's all on her, the rest of her life sacrificed to raise and care for a retarded or handicapped person forever.

She doesn't have to do that in California: she can just leave the baby at a hospital, police, or fire station, no questions asked.

Of course, that costs the taxpayers money - and personally, I think we should pay off the Iraq war before we start paying for defective children. (God knows we've got enough of them posting around here already!)

[mundame]

Make life easier for the parents so they will not be bothered?


Oh, and remember that men bug out when a handicapped baby is born.

So it's making life better for the WOMAN -----------------

Hubby wouldn't be bothered by it anyway, he'd be long gone.

[actsnoblemartin]

thats not the same

it was not a state issue, because the results would affect a NATIONAL election, but nice try my friend :laugh2:



Just like they did for the pubbies in Bush v. Gore, 2000! :lame2:

[red states rule]

People do make that choice, yes, indeed. And the whole entire medical industry is set up to support them.

So we are going to keep abortion legal. Sorry, but that train has left the station.

Sad to see how the left sees the unborn as a disosible item

Yet they will bend over backwards to save a lost whale in SF bay, or protect the life of a convicted murderer

Liberal logic is a sight to behold

BTW, Hilter also killed off those with severe birth defects and impairments

[Abbey Marie]

...
And have you ever, ever seen a woman WITH a husband as well as a retarded or birth-defect child? The man always bails out and leaves: he didn't sign up for that and he doesn't hang around. So it's all on her, the rest of her life sacrificed to raise and care for a retarded or handicapped person forever.
...


Are you kidding? I see it all the time. My own grandmother raised a severly retarded child until he was in his late 20's. My grandfather stuck around and helped raised not only that child, but 6 other healthy ones as well. Are all the men in your area really that awful? Be careful of making absolute statements.

[typomaniac]

thats not the same

it was not a state issue, because the results would affect a NATIONAL election, but nice try my friend :laugh2:

'Fraid not: the electoral process is controlled by the states. Anyone here will tell you that, as long as you don't bring up 2000.

[actsnoblemartin]

why stop at killing kids with deformities, lets kill kids with autism, brown hair, not the right gender.

you see the slippery slope?


They are people if we want the baby, RSR, true.

However, if we don't, this is the only time, before they actually have a life, that we can deal with the issue.

About your sonogram: you know what they are for, don't you?

They are for making sure there are not severe birth defects or other major problems that make an abortion necessary. That's what the sonograms are FOR. Most abortions now are about birth defects and handicapping conditions, genetic errors. Do you notice we hardly see any more Down's Syndrome children? You used to see them all the time, and other very grave impairments --- I saw a microcephalic boy, long ago; that was a horrorshow.

And have you ever, ever seen a woman WITH a husband as well as a retarded or birth-defect child? The man always bails out and leaves: he didn't sign up for that and he doesn't hang around. So it's all on her, the rest of her life sacrificed to raise and care for a retarded or handicapped person forever.

All the abortions I've heard of were about the actuality or danger of severe birth defects and impairments. (Women talk to each other about these sad events, but not to men, ever. This sort of thing is why.)

[actsnoblemartin]

for a federal election?

I believe the feds have jurisdiction over state :dance:



'Fraid not: the electoral process is controlled by the states. Anyone here will tell you that, as long as you don't bring up 2000.

[mundame]

That is actually a valid argument. The purpose of the Constitution is not to grant people rights but to limit the rights of the federal government. My counter argument, however, is asking where in the Constitution the federal government is given permission to override state law that doesn't violate the Constitution.

Good, that's the counterargument, I agree. And indeed, is the usual dream of conservative men (not usually conservative women: that's why rightwing men rioted when Bush appointed Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court. Rumors flew that despite her being a Republican and conservative, she was "soft" on abortion. I don't doubt she was --- I was till recently a Republican, and am fairly conservative, but you see what my opinion is. Women basically want men to butt out of this issue. Men basically want to control women and then take no responsibility for the child: this is unacceptable to us.).





That is a statement of opinion. That they are human beings is verifiable fact, as their existence makes them beings and the presence of distinct, human DNA makes them human.


Of course. They aren't foals or lambs, after all!!!! The "are they human?" argument always seemed strange and simplistic to me.



The idea of a person, however, has more to do with the concept of a soul, which cannot be quantified, and is, thus, unproven. The more correct statement is that Democrats don't care about the unborn because they do not believe them to be people.

Okay. I'm not particularly interested in "soul" arguments, which are rapidly getting passee in our secular intellectual climate.


However, I ask this. If it was discovered with absolute certainty that an unborn child was, in fact, a person, would you still support abortion on demand? If so, then how do you justify placing the rights of one person's convenience above another person's right to live?

Let me answer with another set of questions. If it was discovered with absolute certainty that a burglar was, in fact, a person, would you still support shooting him when he came into your bedroom? If it was discovered with absolute certainty that a Muslim suicide bomber was, in fact, a person, would you still support shooting him as he entered the crowded subway?



If it is because the child is totally dependent on the mother for life, and thus that right is less important, then are you also in favor of killing a child after birth, as they are still completely dependent upon others for survival? Where is the line?

It has to be before birth. Too hard on mothers after, though fathers often do it in many parts of the world all the same, mostly to girl babies. And they demand the right to kill these babies: it's a cultural right of fathers to kill their babies in India and China and so on. I don't see how that is morally different from abortion. Except that men want to arrogate all the rights to them ---------- sorry, not acceptable.


I also ask you to consider the worst case scenario. If I am wrong and the policies I favor are enforced, then the worst I have done is make the ordeal of unwanted pregnancy (an easily avoided ordeal) a few months longer for many people, while at the same time shortening adoption waiting lists and saving women from the documented emotional trauma and guilt that often follows an abortion. If you are wrong and the policies you favor are enforced, then you have perpetuated a waste of human life more massive than the Holocaust. In the case of an unknown, isn't it better to err on the side of caution?

This is a specious argument, since caring for gravely impaired children is hardly only a few months chore. It's a lifelong tragedy.

Also, none of the above is the point. The point is, we get to choose and you don't. The pregnant person gets to choose. The non-pregnant one doesn't, though I agree that women can't ethically decide such a thing independently within a marriage; it is legal, but it is certainly grounds for divorce. However, in the case of a question about a Down's Syndrome child, a divorce would probably be appropriate, if the husband wanted to let the child come to full gestation, given the dire statistics on how he is likely to leave the marriage and she be stuck with the child her whole life, impoverished with huge care burdens and with poor prospects for another marriage.

Basically, your arguments don't matter if the woman is choosing. And we are choosing, so all is well.

[Hobbit]

They are people if we want the baby, RSR, true.

However, if we don't, this is the only time, before they actually have a life, that we can deal with the issue.

About your sonogram: you know what they are for, don't you?

They are for making sure there are not severe birth defects or other major problems that make an abortion necessary. That's what the sonograms are FOR. Most abortions now are about birth defects and handicapping conditions, genetic errors. Do you notice we hardly see any more Down's Syndrome children? You used to see them all the time, and other very grave impairments --- I saw a microcephalic boy, long ago; that was a horrorshow.

And have you ever, ever seen a woman WITH a husband as well as a retarded or birth-defect child? The man always bails out and leaves: he didn't sign up for that and he doesn't hang around. So it's all on her, the rest of her life sacrificed to raise and care for a retarded or handicapped person forever.

All the abortions I've heard of were about the actuality or danger of severe birth defects and impairments. (Women talk to each other about these sad events, but not to men, ever. This sort of thing is why.)

So whether someone is a person or not is a function of how much they're wanted? That seems twisted to me.

As far as disabilities. Which do you think inconveniences the kid more, being disabled or being dead? I would rather live with laundry list of handicaps than be dead. Maybe you wouldn't, but would you really feel comfortable with somebody else making that decision for you without giving you any input at all?

[mundame]

why stop at killing kids with deformities, lets kill kids with autism, brown hair, not the right gender.

you see the slippery slope?


It is a slippery slope, you are right, ANM -- and RSR cites part of that with his "BTW, Hilter also killed off those with severe birth defects and impairments."


In India today sonagrams are being used to sex children prenatally and then abort the females. This is a normal, routine use. The Wall Street Journal runs occasional articles on it because the supplier of the sonogram machines is an American company, and they know very well what is going on, so it's an ethical issue.<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->

[mundame]

So whether someone is a person or not is a function of how much they're wanted? That seems twisted to me.

Whether they become a mature person tends to be a function of whether they are wanted, all over the world.



As far as disabilities. Which do you think inconveniences the kid more, being disabled or being dead?

Being disabled, of course, because dead is not a state of being. Not being, in fact, is rather the point of death.

I think that most of our fear of death is caused by our bad linguistic habit of using the noun "death" with the verb "to be." Which is profoundly illogical.

It's very interesting talking to you smart people about these issues. But I'm supposed to be gardening!

Anon ---- http://macg.net/emoticons/ambient1.gif

[typomaniac]

for a federal election?

I believe the feds have jurisdiction over state :dance:

Don't be silly. That would defeat the whole purpose of the Electoral College. :uhoh:

[Hobbit]

Good, that's the counterargument, I agree. And indeed, is the usual dream of conservative men (not usually conservative women: that's why rightwing men rioted when Bush appointed Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court. Rumors flew that despite her being a Republican and conservative, she was "soft" on abortion. I don't doubt she was --- I was till recently a Republican, and am fairly conservative, but you see what my opinion is. Women basically want men to butt out of this issue. Men basically want to control women and then take no responsibility for the child: this is unacceptable to us.).

Your characterization of conservative men is deplorable. Most people I heard opposing Harriet Miers were doing so on ideological differences and questions of qualifications, which I weighed out myself. It wasn't that they were rioting, it was more along the lines of, "Man or woman, we can do better." I also don't get why men are not allowed to weigh in on an important moral and ethical issue simply because they haven't experienced it firsthand. Does this lack of experience often give them a lack of perspective on the problem? Probably. Does it invalidate their opinions? Of course not. Just as those who have never had cancer are permitted to weigh in on the use of chemotherapy, those who have not been pregnant are allowed to weigh in on the ethics and morality of abortion.


Of course. They aren't foals or lambs, after all!!!! The "are they human?" argument always seemed strange and simplistic to me.

Well, that's one thing we can agree on. Good.


Okay. I'm not particularly interested in "soul" arguments, which are rapidly getting passee in our secular intellectual climate.

Then what is the distinction? What makes a baby a person but a fetus not a person?


Let me answer with another set of questions. If it was discovered with absolute certainty that a burglar was, in fact, a person, would you still support shooting him when he came into your bedroom? If it was discovered with absolute certainty that a Muslim suicide bomber was, in fact, a person, would you still support shooting him as he entered the crowded subway?

That comparison is irrelevant. The last time I checked, babies were completely innocent and are not looking to hurt anybody. Likening abortion to shooting a burglar is like comparing the Holocaust to the Russian defense against the Nazis.


It has to be before birth. Too hard on mothers after, though fathers often do it in many parts of the world all the same, mostly to girl babies. And they demand the right to kill these babies: it's a cultural right of fathers to kill their babies in India and China and so on. I don't see how that is morally different from abortion. Except that men want to arrogate all the rights to them ---------- sorry, not acceptable.

So, you think it's morally permissible to commit infanticide? That's sick, and if it's true, then I can so no productive conversation stemming from this argument.


This is a specious argument, since caring for gravely impaired children is hardly only a few months chore. It's a lifelong tragedy.

Caring for the child is not forced onto parents. You can put impaired children up for adoption. However, I have never met parents of a handicapped child say they regretted keeping him/her...EVER.


Also, none of the above is the point. The point is, we get to choose and you don't. The pregnant person gets to choose. The non-pregnant one doesn't, though I agree that women can't ethically decide such a thing independently within a marriage; it is legal, but it is certainly grounds for divorce. However, in the case of a question about a Down's Syndrome child, a divorce would probably be appropriate, if the husband wanted to let the child come to full gestation, given the dire statistics on how he is likely to leave the marriage and she be stuck with the child her whole life, impoverished with huge care burdens and with poor prospects for another marriage.

Basically, your arguments don't matter if the woman is choosing. And we are choosing, so all is well.

And here lies the other huge problem I have with this issue. Yes, the mother gestates the child, but isn't the child also the father's? Why is the mother the sole arbiter of the poor kid's fate? If the father wants input in the fate of his own child, why is it legally denied unless the mother decides to hear it? What about 'equal protection under the law?' Why is it that a woman is permitted to abort and avoid parental responsibilities over the objections of the father or perhaps even to SPITE the father while a father who never had any intention of becoming one and who would gladly abort, if given the option, is saddled with 18 years of responsibility simply at the whim of the mother? In short, why doesn't the father seem to matter to you at all?

[theHawk]

No one is imposing abortion on you.
Of course not, its imposing abortion on the unborn child.



They are protecting the right to choose abortion if someone wants to. If the majority doesn't want to, hey, carry on at will.

I think some people mistake wanting complete control and not getting it for "imposing the rights of the minority on the majority." If they don't get to control other people to force them to do what they want, especially controlling women, then they just aren't having fun and feel all indignant.

Laws against abortion are no more about controlling women as are rape laws about controlling men.



I'd say if you don't want an abortion, don't have one. But leave other people alone about the issue.
Why not just say, "If you don't want to commit rape or murder, then don't do it. But leave other people alone on the issue."? Why does abortion get a free pass that individuals get to decide on without consequence?

[typomaniac]

Yes, the mother gestates the child, but isn't the child also the father's? Why is the mother the sole arbiter of the poor kid's fate? If the father wants input in the fate of his own child, why is it legally denied unless the mother decides to hear it? What about 'equal protection under the law?' Why is it that a woman is permitted to abort and avoid parental responsibilities over the objections of the father or perhaps even to SPITE the father while a father who never had any intention of becoming one and who would gladly abort, if given the option, is saddled with 18 years of responsibility simply at the whim of the mother?

I'm basically pro-life, and I stand by my previous statements on this issue: if BOTH the mother and the father aren't prepared to assume full responsibility for the consequences of what they do, they shouldn't fuck. Not much more need be said about it.

[retiredman]

That "Compassion forum" was a joke. All it was was a laundry list of what Dems will give away to masses

It was like the over the hill hippie in 1992 who asked the candidates what they were going to do for him


did you watch the forum? and can you explain why you quoted my response and then used your magic eight ball to generate a reply that had nothing to do with the post you quoted?

[glockmail]

That is one of the foundations of liberalism. Impose the rights of the minority on the majority That explains affirmative action and queer marriage perfectly.

[red states rule]

That explains affirmative action and queer marriage perfectly.

and the libs annual war on Christmas

[theHawk]

did you watch the forum? and can you explain why you quoted my response and then used your magic eight ball to generate a reply that had nothing to do with the post you quoted?

I watched part of it. It was a complete farce. CNN was a disgrace with their softball questions and their cop-out answers.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0804/13/se.01.html --

MEACHAM: Senator, do you believe personally that life begins at conception?

CLINTON: I believe that the potential for life begins at conception. I am a Methodist, as you know. My church has struggled with this issue. In fact, you can look at the Methodist Book of Discipline and see the contradiction and the challenge of trying to sort that very profound question out.

But for me, it is also not only about a potential life; it is about the other lives involved. And, therefore, I have concluded, after great, you know, concern and searching my own mind and heart over many years, that our task should be in this pluralistic, diverse life of ours in this nation that individuals must be entrusted to make this profound decision, because the alternative would be such an intrusion of government authority that it would be very difficult to sustain in our kind of open society.

And as some of you've heard me discuss before, I think abortion should remain legal, but it needs to be safe and rare.
I was raised Methodist, and her answer is a complete cop-out. We never read the "Methodist Book of Discipline", we used the Bible. And I don't recall any sermons saying that abortion should be legal.
Funny how Bush is a Methodist too, and holds the complete opposite position of Hillary.
Couldn't possibly be because she is full of shit and is a complete hypocrit is it?


Then there is this gem.

And where abortion was criminalized and women were literally forced to have physical exams and followed by the secret police and so many children were abandoned and left to the orphanages that, unfortunately, led to an AIDS epidemic.
How on fuck does having babies lead to an AIDS epidemic? This is how she is going to guilt people into being pro-abortion? On the belief that if we have too many children they will be abandoned and get AIDS? I've never heard such garbage in my life. But does CNN bother to follow up on this completely assinine statement? No....



And according to Clinton, its now the US's charge to pay for the education of 77 million kids around the world:

And the work that I would want to do to have the United States lead the world in putting the 77 million kids who aren't in school into school, having us lead when it comes to health care, particularly in malaria, T.B., HIV/AIDS, but also women's health which has been woefully neglected.


Onto Obama:

REV. SAMUEL RODRIGUEZ, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL HISPANIC LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE: Senator Obama, the vast majority of Americans believe that abortion is a decision to be made by a woman, her family and her doctors. However, the vast majority of Americans similarly believe that abortion is the taking of a human life.

The terms pro-choice and pro-life, do they encapsulate that reality in our 21st Century setting and can we find common ground?
...
OBAMA: Those of us, like myself, who believe that in this difficult situation it is a woman's responsibility and choice to make in consultation with her doctor and her pastor and her family.
I think we will continue to suggest that that's the right legal framework to deal with the issue. But at least we can start focusing on how to move in a better direction than the one we've been in the past.
Only problem is Obama himself has indicated he does not support notification of parents when minors are to get abortions.
http://www.votesmart.org/npat.php?can_id=9490
Maybe Bam-bam doesn't consider parents of a minor part of the "family".


Oh, and this just gets better:

MEACHAM: Senator, do you personally believe that life begins at conception? And if not, when does it begin?

OBAMA: This is something that I have not, I think, come to a firm resolution on. I think it's very hard to know what that means, when life begins. Is it when a cell separates? Is it when the soul stirs? So I don't presume to know the answer to that question. What I know, as I've said before, is that there is something extraordinarily powerful about potential life and that that has a moral weight to it that we take into consideration when we're having these debates.
What a complete lying sack of shit Obama is. He also does not support banning PARTIAL BIRTH abortions -
http://www.votesmart.org/npat.php?can_id=9490

And he even fought and voted against a bill to protect the lives of babies BORN after a failed abortion. Thats right, he would not even pass a bill cracking down on INFANTICIDE.
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/votehistory/srollcalls92/920SB1662_04042002_014000T.pdf
But does CNN bother to point out his past voting record that completely contradicts seemingly compassionate statements on this program? No....


CNN is a fucking sham, they are a disgrace and are completely unwilling to expose the truth about these lying pieces of shit they tout as compassionate leaders.

[red states rule]

Whenever conservatives bring God into the debate, Dems have a fit. They scream about seperation of Church and State

But when libs talk about God, other liberals swoon and blush how compassonate their candidates are

[theHawk]

And onther gem from the CNN "Compassion Forum"


BROWN: Senator, you are a Christian, but as a child you had more exposure to Islam than probably most Americans ever will. How did that shape you?

OBAMA:And so what it taught me, and what it still teaches me, as I think about foreign policy now, is that Islam can be compatible with the modern world.
Gee, you don't think the Islamic world has changed a bit since the seventies there Barry? Islam is not compatible with the modern world, if this shitbag believes this then we are in quite alot of trouble.



WALLACE: I'm good. As you reminded us a week or two ago, when Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was killed 40 years ago, he wasn't just speaking about civil rights. He was fighting for economic justice, was about to launch a poor people's campaign.

Yet, four decades after the anniversary of his death, the poverty rate in America is virtually unchanged and one in six of our children are poor in the richest nation in the world.

So in the faith community, we are wanting a new commitment around a measurable goal, something like cutting poverty in half in 10 years. Would you commit -- would you at this historic compassion forum, commit to such a goal tonight and if elected, tell us how you'd mobilize the nation, mobilize us to achieve that goal?

OBAMA: Well, first of all, Jim, I appreciate the good work you've been doing on these issues. And I absolutely will make that commitment. Understand that when I make that commitment, I do so with great humility because it is a very ambitious goal. And we're going to have to mobilize our society, not just to cut poverty, but to prevent more people from slipping into poverty.

You know, this actually goes back to the earlier point you raised where Senator Clinton suggested I was being elitist when I said that people are frustrated and bitter. That is absolutely true. That's not just true in small towns. That's true in urban areas. That's true in my community of the South Side of Chicago. Because people feel forgotten. They feel as if nobody is listening in Washington.
Right Barry. 'Don't worry little people, when I am Prez, all your worries will go away. You'll know I am looking out for you. Big brother is here, I am ready to tax the rich to feed dribblings to you. You won't need to cling to religion, and you certainly won't need that gun, because I will be there for you, looking out for you.'

[red states rule]

Hawk, correct me if I am worng. The libs been fighting the war on poverty for about 43 years

I believe libs have transferred about $9 trillion from the producers to the nonproducers during those 43 years

and we are told poverty has never been worse

So how can anyone believe Barry he will cut poverty in half in 10 years?

Am I missing something here, or is this just more liberal bullshit?

[typomaniac]

"Yes, the liberals must burn for the wrongs they've done to us.

Let's smash all their shop windows!"

:pee:

[CockySOB]

I never said that conservative judges did not have wisdom. And your opinions as to the qualities you'd like in judges are certainly valid. I happen to have a different opinion.

So you would prefer the rule of emotion as opposed to the rule of law? Why do you hate America so much?

[midcan5]

Hawk, correct me if I am worng. The libs been fighting the war on poverty for about 43 years

I believe libs have transferred about $9 trillion from the producers to the nonproducers during those 43 years

and we are told poverty has never been worse

So how can anyone believe Barry he will cut poverty in half in 10 years?

Am I missing something here, or is this just more liberal bullshit?

The past twenty years, even longer, since Reagan the republicans or the more conservative approaches to poverty have been in operation. I give both sides a failing grade. Poverty is structural, it is not cured by giving money nor by taking it away. It is like those neighborhoods in Appalachian where the smart ones move away or join the military - how do you change what remains? Same for the inner city. I haven't read it yet but there is a book, 'the persistence of poverty' which examines this problem.

"...traditional economics just doesn't apply to the poor. When we're poor, Karelis argues, our economic worldview is shaped by deprivation, and we see the world around us not in terms of goods to be consumed but as problems to be alleviated. This is where the bee stings come in: A person with one bee sting is highly motivated to get it treated. But a person with multiple bee stings does not have much incentive to get one sting treated, because the others will still throb. The more of a painful or undesirable thing one has (i.e. the poorer one is) the less likely one is to do anything about any one problem. Poverty is less a matter of having few goods than having lots of problems."

I wish I knew the answers but your pointing fingers is wasted.

http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezraklein_archive?month=04&year=2008&base_name=the_persistence_of_poverty

[red states rule]

The past twenty years, even longer, since Reagan the republicans or the more conservative approaches to poverty have been in operation. I give both sides a failing grade. Poverty is structural, it is not cured by giving money nor by taking it away. It is like those neighborhood in Appalachian where the smart ones move away or join the military - how do you change what remains? Same for the inner city. I haven't read it yet but there is a book, 'the persistence of poverty' which examines this problem.

"...traditional economics just doesn't apply to the poor. When we're poor, Karelis argues, our economic worldview is shaped by deprivation, and we see the world around us not in terms of goods to be consumed but as problems to be alleviated. This is where the bee stings come in: A person with one bee sting is highly motivated to get it treated. But a person with multiple bee stings does not have much incentive to get one sting treated, because the others will still throb. The more of a painful or undesirable thing one has (i.e. the poorer one is) the less likely one is to do anything about any one problem. Poverty is less a matter of having few goods than having lots of problems."

I wish I knew the answers but your pointing fingers is wasted.



The US has the richest poor in the world. Being "poor" in America is not so bad

A few goods? Almost half the people considered in poverty own their own home, and have at least one car

[typomaniac]

Poverty is structural, it is not cured by giving money nor by taking it away. It is like those neighborhoods in Appalachian where the smart ones move away or join the military - how do you change what remains? Same for the inner city. I haven't read it yet but there is a book, 'the persistence of poverty' which examines this problem.

I wish I knew the answers but your pointing fingers is wasted.

Poverty is mainly a function of inadequate education and of health issues. Edit: Not to mention too few jobs, and too many jobs that don't pay enough to support oneself on.

[Kathianne]

Poverty is mainly a function of inadequate education and of health issues. Edit: Not to mention too few jobs, and too many jobs that don't pay enough to support oneself on.

Not really. Mostly it's a function of not being prepared to meet those challenges and having developed the attitude to keep trying when others around you don't. There are lack of role models and those available are not necessarily in the positions one would choose for a long life.

[typomaniac]

Not really. Mostly it's a function of not being prepared to meet those challenges and having developed the attitude to keep trying when others around you don't. There are lack of role models and those available are not necessarily in the positions one would choose for a long life.

You can't be prepared to meet life's challenges without an adequate education.

Come back with your talking points when most inner city children start graduating from 4-year colleges.

[Yurt]

You can't be prepared to meet life's challenges without an adequate education.

Come back with your talking points when most inner city children start graduating from 4-year colleges.

essplain "adequate" edumucation

[DragonStryk72]

I've gone over how to begin this numerous times, but I find that nothing truly comes to mind, so I'll just unload this quickly, and hope to be done with it.

I used to say when asked about abortion that I was too ignorant to speak on it, having never had a girl tell me that she was pregnant. Well, I cannot say such words any longer. In september of '05, my girlfriend at the time found out she was pregnant, and, while I was overjoyed, she wasn't. I know that it was her choice to abort the child, not mine, and that she would have gone through with the abortion regardless of my say so.

It does not excuse, though, that I did not fight for it. Boy, girl, normal or with defects, I would have taken the child, even if it meant raising them by myself. It haunts me that, had I fought, had I dug in, I might, even now, have a 2 year son, or a daughter, and there is this.... emptiness, and I think at times that, if I failed at this, then I do not deserve to have children, that I have failed every ideal I have ever held to.

I know that, in some eyes, this lessens me, I know that, but know that you cannot see less in me than I see in myself for my choice, for even in not choosing, I still chose.

I believe that, just as a woman has a right to choose, so too does the father have a say in whether or not the child should be born. I believe that aborting a child is the worst choice you can ever make, and should only be used in issues of rape, or where the mother's life is in jeopardy from it.

[Kathianne]

You can't be prepared to meet life's challenges without an adequate education.

Come back with your talking points when most inner city children start graduating from 4-year colleges.

Tell me when the majority of any race start graduating from 4 year colleges. :lol:

Yes, one can meet life's challenges today without a college education. In 2007 over 80% of both males and females graduated HS.

To complete school requires the ability to meet challenges, with that success one can meet 'life's challenges.'

[retiredman]

The US has the richest poor in the world. Being "poor" in America is not so bad

A few goods? Almost half the people considered in poverty own their own home, and have at least one car

:link:

[red states rule]

:link:

The following facts about persons defined as "poor" by the Census Bureau are taken from various government reports:

Forty-six percent of all poor households own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as "poor" by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.

Seventy-six percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.

Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.

The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)

Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars.

Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television. Over half own two or more color televisions.

Seventy-eight percent of America's poor own a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.

Seventy-three percent of America's poor own microwave ovens; more than half have a stereo; and one-third have an automatic dishwasher.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/bg1796.cfm

[retiredman]

The following facts about persons defined as "poor" by the Census Bureau are taken from various government reports:

Forty-six percent of all poor households own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as "poor" by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.

Seventy-six percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.

Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.

The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)

Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars.

Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television. Over half own two or more color televisions.

Seventy-eight percent of America's poor own a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.

Seventy-three percent of America's poor own microwave ovens; more than half have a stereo; and one-third have an automatic dishwasher.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/bg1796.cfm

the entire Rector article has only 12 footnotes. NONE of the little "factoids" you list above has any footnotes to indicate which of the "various government reports" the data was extracted. I have NEVER filled out a government form or questionaire as to what sort of television I have or whether I have a microwave or dishwasher or even how many rooms are in my house. I wonder why the sources for that information are not made available as are twelve other more reasonable "factoids" in the article. Would you be able to explain that?

some other conflicting sources:

http://www.soundvision.com/Info/poor/statistics.asp

http://www.povertyinamerica.psu.edu/

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_changing_face_of_poverty_in_a merica

[red states rule]

Why am I surprised you dismiss numbers by the US Census Bureau? I guess they are a right wing hack group in your book

The point is, being "poor" in America is not as bad as libs would have you believe

The US does indeed have the richest poor in the world

[Kathianne]

the entire Rector article has only 12 footnotes. NONE of the little "factoids" you list above has any footnotes to indicate which of the "various government reports" the data was extracted. I have NEVER filled out a government form or questionaire as to what sort of television I have or whether I have a microwave or dishwasher or even how many rooms are in my house. I wonder why the sources for that information are not made available as are twelve other more reasonable "factoids" in the article. Would you be able to explain that?

some other conflicting sources:

http://www.soundvision.com/Info/poor/statistics.asp

http://www.povertyinamerica.psu.edu/

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_changing_face_of_poverty_in_a merica

I have, when a census taker knocked on the door. If you are not one of those 'interviewed' you get the 'short form.'

[retiredman]

Why am I surprised you dismiss numbers by the US Census Bureau? I guess they are a right wing hack group in your book

The point is, being "poor" in America is not as bad as libs would have you believe

The US does indeed have the richest poor in the world


those aren't numbers from the US Census Bureau.

[red states rule]

those aren't numbers from the US Census Bureau.

The following facts about persons defined as "poor" by the Census Bureau are taken from various government reports

Again, we have the richest poor in the world MFM

If you want to see real poverty try Bangladesh

[retiredman]

The following facts about persons defined as "poor" by the Census Bureau are taken from various government reports

Again, we have the richest poor in the world MFM

If you want to see real poverty try Bangladesh


the facts are about some people....the people those facts are about are the ones who are defined as poor by the Census Bureau. The facts themselves do not come from the Census Bureau...... the facts supposedly come from "various government reports". As I stated earlier, the article references many government reports for many of the other "factoids" contained therein. It lists NONE of the "various government reports" that are supposedly the source for the facts you list. Can you explain that? yes or no?

[red states rule]

the facts are about some people....the people those facts are about are the ones who are defined as poor by the Census Bureau. The facts themselves do not come from the Census Bureau...... the facts supposedly come from "various government reports". As I stated earlier, the article references many government reports for many of the other "factoids" contained therein. It lists NONE of the "various government reports" that are supposedly the source for the facts you list. Can you explain that?

OK MFM, stick your fingers in your ears, and cover your eyes, so you will not have to pay attention to facts that go against your views how widespread and sever poverty is in America

[retiredman]

OK MFM, stick your fingers in your ears, and cover your eyes, so you will not have to pay attention to facts that go against your views how widespread and sever poverty is in America


so....you can't explain that? why not just say so?

[red states rule]

so....you can't explain that? why not just say so?

Sources look good to me

1. U.S. Bureau of the Census, Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2003, Current Population Reports, pp. 60-226, at www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/p60-226.pdf (September 10, 2004).

2. See Melissa G. Pardue, "Sharp Reductions in Black Child Poverty Due to Welfare Reform," Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 1661, June 12, 2003, at www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/bg1661.cfm.

3. SIPP and MEPS are surveys conducted through the U.S. Census Bureau and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, respectively.

4. U.S. Bureau of the Census, Income, Poverty and Health Insurance, p. 8.

5. The Census quintiles each contain 20 percent of U.S. households, not persons. The households in the bottom quintile are generally small; many are single persons. By contrast, the households in the top quintile are large; most are married couple families with many members and multiple earners. The bottom quintile has a comparatively small share of total income, in part, because there are fewer people in it. The top quintile has a greater share of total income, in part, because it has a disproportionate share of persons and workers.

6. The adjusted income ratio of $4.21 to $1.00 is based on data from 2002. However, because income distribution data change only slightly from year to year, the 2003 figures can be expected to be nearly identical. See Robert Rector and Rea S. Hederman, Jr., "Two Americas: One Rich, One Poor? Understanding Income Inequality in the United States," Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 1791, August 24, 2004, at www.heritage.org/Research/taxes/bg1791.cfm.

7. See Robert E. Rector and Kirk A. Johnson, Ph.D., "Understanding Poverty in America," Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 1713, January 5, 2004, at www.heritage.org/Research/welfare/bg1713.cfm.

8. Mark Nord, Margaret Andrews, and Steven Carlson, "Household Food Security in the United States, 2002," U.S. Department of Agriculture, October 2003, p.16, at www.ers.usda.gov/publications/fanrr35/fanrr35b.pdf (September 10, 2004).

9. Ibid., p. 17

10. Calculated from the USDA Food Security survey for 2001.

11. Robert E. Rector and Rea S. Hederman, Jr., "The Role of Parental Work in Child Poverty," Heritage Foundation Center for Data Analysis Report No. CDA03-01, January 27, 2003, at www.heritage.org/Research/Family/cda-03-01.cfm.

12. Robert E. Rector, Kirk A. Johnson, Ph.D., Patrick F. Fagan, and Lauren R. Noyes, "Increasing Marriage Would Dramatically Reduce Child Poverty," Heritage Foundation Center for Data Analysis Report No. CDA03-06, May 20, 2003, at www.heritage. org/Research/Family/cda0306.cfm.

[retiredman]

Sources look good to me

1. U.S. Bureau of the Census, Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2003, Current Population Reports, pp. 60-226, at www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/p60-226.pdf (September 10, 2004).

2. See Melissa G. Pardue, "Sharp Reductions in Black Child Poverty Due to Welfare Reform," Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 1661, June 12, 2003, at www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/bg1661.cfm.

3. SIPP and MEPS are surveys conducted through the U.S. Census Bureau and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, respectively.

4. U.S. Bureau of the Census, Income, Poverty and Health Insurance, p. 8.

5. The Census quintiles each contain 20 percent of U.S. households, not persons. The households in the bottom quintile are generally small; many are single persons. By contrast, the households in the top quintile are large; most are married couple families with many members and multiple earners. The bottom quintile has a comparatively small share of total income, in part, because there are fewer people in it. The top quintile has a greater share of total income, in part, because it has a disproportionate share of persons and workers.

6. The adjusted income ratio of $4.21 to $1.00 is based on data from 2002. However, because income distribution data change only slightly from year to year, the 2003 figures can be expected to be nearly identical. See Robert Rector and Rea S. Hederman, Jr., "Two Americas: One Rich, One Poor? Understanding Income Inequality in the United States," Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 1791, August 24, 2004, at www.heritage.org/Research/taxes/bg1791.cfm.

7. See Robert E. Rector and Kirk A. Johnson, Ph.D., "Understanding Poverty in America," Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 1713, January 5, 2004, at www.heritage.org/Research/welfare/bg1713.cfm.

8. Mark Nord, Margaret Andrews, and Steven Carlson, "Household Food Security in the United States, 2002," U.S. Department of Agriculture, October 2003, p.16, at www.ers.usda.gov/publications/fanrr35/fanrr35b.pdf (September 10, 2004).

9. Ibid., p. 17

10. Calculated from the USDA Food Security survey for 2001.

11. Robert E. Rector and Rea S. Hederman, Jr., "The Role of Parental Work in Child Poverty," Heritage Foundation Center for Data Analysis Report No. CDA03-01, January 27, 2003, at www.heritage.org/Research/Family/cda-03-01.cfm.

12. Robert E. Rector, Kirk A. Johnson, Ph.D., Patrick F. Fagan, and Lauren R. Noyes, "Increasing Marriage Would Dramatically Reduce Child Poverty," Heritage Foundation Center for Data Analysis Report No. CDA03-06, May 20, 2003, at www.heritage. org/Research/Family/cda0306.cfm.

none of those twelve footnotes refer to any of the eight "facts" that supposedly were gleaned from other government reports that you have copied above.

[red states rule]

none of those twelve footnotes refer to any of the eight "facts" that supposedly were gleaned from other government reports that you have copied above.

You just will not admit when you are beat will you?

Facts have never meant anything to you, when they go against you

[retiredman]

You just will not admit when you are beat will you?

Facts have never meant anything to you, when they go against you

I have pointed out that none of the "facts" you list have any supporting documentation. I pointed out that many other facts in that article DO have supporting documentation (although most of the footnotes are merely references to other articles written by the same guy).... yet NONE of the eight facts you have listed have any reference. Can you explain that?

[red states rule]

I have pointed out that none of the "facts" you list have any supporting documentation. I pointed out that many other facts in that article DO have supporting documentation (although most of the footnotes are merely references to other articles written by the same guy).... yet NONE of the eight facts you have listed have any reference. Can you explain that?

The article is long and detailed. Those details are what is bugging you MFM. It shows the "poor" have it pretty good in America

[glockmail]

:link:
Back to this shit again I see. When have you ever presented links or facts to back up, what you typically end up defining as, your "opinions". :lol:

[red states rule]

Back to this shit again I see. When have you ever presented links or facts to back up, what you typically end up defining as, your "opinions". :lol:

This time he is ignoring them, and demanding even more proof

It really gets to him when he is beaten with facts

[retiredman]

The article is long and detailed. Those details are what is bugging you MFM. It shows the "poor" have it pretty good in America


I read the article. It is footnoted....most of the footnotes are merely to other Rector articles, but nonetheless, the eight particular points that you chose to cut and paste to "prove" your point about home ownership are NOT footnoted and have no reference to them.